Cases 41 - 50 of 74
Shawn Williams v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 14-72652
Petitioner:
SHAWN ONEAL WILLIAMS, AKA Shawn O'Neal Williams
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
Hatfield v. Hatfield et al
as 2:2014cv01844
Plaintiff:
Donald J Hatfield
Defendant:
Shelly E Hatfield, Estate of Linda C ONeal, Jerry P Weiers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shawn Williams v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 14-71477
Petitioner:
SHAWN ONEAL WILLIAMS, AKA Shawn O'Neal Williams
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00332
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Shawn Williams v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 13-72491
Petitioner:
SHAWN ONEAL WILLIAMS, AKA Shawn O'Neal Williams
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
City of Fullerton et al v. Insurance Company Of The State Of Pennsylvania et al
as 8:2013cv00926
Plaintiff:
Joseph Brissette, Lee Broadbent, Roberta Browning and others
Defendant:
Chartis Domestic Claims Inc, Chartis US Insurance Group, Insurance Company Of The State Of Pennsylvania and others
Oniel Daniels v. Eric Holder, Jr.
as 13-71418
Petitioner:
ONIEL DANIELS, AKA Oneal L. Daniels
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
Hylton v. Brock et al
as 4:2013cv00002
Petitioner:
Travis ONeal Hylton
Respondent:
R Brock and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Praizner, et al v. Finch, et al
as 3:2012cv02920
Plaintiff:
Matthew Praizner , Stacey Praizner , Joseph Amador and others
Defendant:
Christopher Finch , Jonathan Finch, Brian Finch and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1334 Bankruptcy Appeal
Hylton v. Brock et al
as 4:2012cv00569
Petitioner:
Travis ONeal Hylton
Respondent:
R Brock and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
