Cases 71 - 80 of 22,025
White v. O'Malley
as 1:2024cv00237
Plaintiff:
Michael White
Defendant:
Martin J. O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Crawford v. The State of Alabama et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2024cv00177
Plaintiff:
Jhamal Dwayne Crawford
Defendant:
The State of Alabama and Alabama Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Anderson v. O'Malley
as 2:2024cv00254
Plaintiff:
Ladarius Kintia Anderson
Defendant:
Martin J. O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Ross v. Guildford et al
as 2:2024cv00254
Plaintiff:
Rodney Patrick Ross
Defendant:
Jonathan Andrew Guildford, Stacie Irving and Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC et al
as 2:2024cv00250
Plaintiff:
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Defendant:
Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC and Norcold, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Doe v. General Motors LLC
as 2:2024cv00249
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
General Motors LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Ross v. Guilford et al
as 2:2024cv00252
Plaintiff:
Rodney Patrick Ross
Defendant:
Jonathan Andrew Guilford, Stacie Irving and Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00251
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities Act
McCrory v. Hamm (INMATE 1)
as 2:2024cv00247
Plaintiff:
Charles McCrory
Defendant:
John Hamm
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reese v. Huggins et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2024cv00248
Plaintiff:
Cedric Anthony Reese
Defendant:
Thomas Huggins and Blake Turman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
