Cases 1 - 10 of 22
Anthony Posey v. Dwight Neven, et al
as 23-15044
Petitioner / Appellant:
ANTHONY MERITT POSEY
Respondent / Appellee:
DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JEREMY BEAN and others
Kodiak Blaine, et al v. Benefis Health System, et al
as 22-35497
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KODIAK BLAINE, DOUGLAS DARKO, CHRISTOPHER FLOWER and others
Defendant / Appellee:
BENEFIS HEALTH SYSTEM, BENEFIS HOSPITALS, INC., BENEFIS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-35080
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
USA v. David Posey
as 21-30094
Defendant / Appellant:
DAVID POSEY
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
USA v. David Posey
as 20-30172
Defendant / Appellant:
DAVID POSEY
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
John Lucas v. County of Kern, et al
as 20-16439
Defendant / Appellee:
MICHAEL BARKER, MARY CLAIRE WALSH, COUNTY OF KERN and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN LUCAS
USA v. David Posey
as 19-30058
Defendant / Appellant:
DAVID POSEY
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Christopher Johnson v. County of Greenville, et al
as 18-16532
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
COUNTY OF GREENVILLE, employer of Christopher T. Posey, CHRISTOPHER T. POSEY, attorney, individual and official capacity, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, employer of Karen Ratigan and others
Richard Corley v. USDC-AZP
as 18-71701
:
In re: RICHARD EUGENE CORLEY
Petitioner:
RICHARD EUGENE CORLEY
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX
Real Party In Interest:
GINA CUCUZELLA, Deputy County Attorney at Maricopa County and ARLENE R. POSEY, Detective at Phoenix Police Department/also named as Arlene Posey
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-15310
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
