Cases 11 - 20 of 25
Miller v. Vail
as 4:2015cv04074
Plaintiff:
Melton Lee Miller
Defendant:
Ashley Vail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Munn et al v. Hunt et al
as 4:2015cv04072
Plaintiff:
Willie Munn and Mary Eliza Munn
Defendant:
Crissy Hunt, Casey Parker, Dustin Wakefield and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Munn et al v. Hunt et al
as 4:2015cv00467
Plaintiff:
Willie Munn and Mary Eliza Munn
Defendant:
Crissy Hunt, Casey Parker, Dustin Wakefield and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pitts v. Bradsher et al
as 6:2015cv06075
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Pitts
Defendant:
Bradsher, Kenny Ford, Joel Ware and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pitts v. Bradsher et al
as 4:2015cv00353
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Pitts
Defendant:
Bradsher, Kenny Ford, Joel Ware and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pride v. Vailes et al
as 5:2015cv00126
Plaintiff:
John E Pride
Defendant:
Ashley Vailes, Tashara White, James Gibson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Courtney Smith v. John Felts, et al
as 15-1530
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Courtney Smith
Defendant - Appellee:
John Felts, Chairman, Arkansas Parole Board, Ashley Vailes, Hearing Examiner, Arkansas Parole Board, Rodney Wright, Jr., Parole Officer, Arkansas Parole Office and others
Seyoum Clark v. Chioma Hawkins, et al
as 15-1504
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Seyoum Ali Clark
Defendant - Appellee:
Chioma Hawkins, Supervising Parole Officer (DCC), Ashley Vailes, Hearing Examiner, Arkansas Parole Board (DCC), Doc Holiday, Pulaski County Sheriff and others
Thomas v. Paxton et al
as 4:2015cv00104
Plaintiff:
Brian Kenneth Thomas
Defendant:
Lindsey Paxton, Ashley Vailes and Arkansas Department of Community Correction
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clark et al v. Vailes et al
as 4:2015cv00010
Plaintiff:
Seyoum Ali Clark
Defendant:
Chioma Hawkins, Ashley Vailes, Doc Holiday and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
