Cases 1 - 10 of 73
Doe et al v. Dardanelle School District et al
as 4:2024cv00339
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe and Sally Doe
Defendant:
Dardanelle School District, Arthur J Gallagher & Company - Little Rock, Nicholas Rolando Valls and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - 42:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00336
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Carson v. UAMS Medical Center et al
as 4:2023cv00328
Plaintiff:
Arthur Carson
Defendant:
UAMS Medical Center and Daniel Holleyman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Edwards v. Navajo Express Inc et al
as 2:2023cv00006
Plaintiff:
Arthur Edwards
Defendant:
Navajo Express Inc and Eddie Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Newman v. Payne et al
as 2:2022cv00188
Plaintiff:
Clifford Arthur Newman
Defendant:
Dexter Payne, Solomon Graves and Tommy Hurst
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Poindexter v. Brown et al
as 4:2022cv00676
Plaintiff:
Eddie Arthur Poindexter, Jr
Defendant:
J D Brown, Kalah D Smith, T A Griffin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bryant v. Loggains
as 3:2022cv00114
Plaintiff:
Arthur Bryant
Defendant:
Heath Loggains
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
Moler v. Wells et al
as 4:2022cv00113
Plaintiff:
Arthur Flemming Moler
Defendant:
Wells, Ian Connors and USA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Decastro v. Bank OZK et al
as 4:2021cv01194
Plaintiff:
Igor Decastro
Defendant:
Bank OZK, Hot Springs Neurology Clinic PA, James Adams and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Ausburn v. Social Security Administration
as 4:2021cv01145
Plaintiff:
Arthur Harold Ausburn
Defendant:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
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.
