Cases 21 - 30 of 190
MIKE v. MARTIN LUTHER KING MEMORIAL CHAPEL LLC et al
as 1:2022cv00047
Plaintiff:
DERRICK MIKE
Defendant:
MARTIN LUTHER KING MEMORIAL CHAPEL LLC and TONY HUDSON
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00017
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
THOMAS v. COWENS et al
as 5:2022cv00012
Plaintiff:
SHELTON R THOMAS
Defendant:
DOCTOR KENNETH COWENS, NURSE DEBORAH TYMES, LT PATRICIA THOMAS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
KING v. SMITH
as 3:2021cv00128
Petitioner:
EDDIE JAMES KING
Respondent:
Warden AIMEE SMITH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DAVIS v. KING
as 5:2021cv00366
Plaintiff:
GARRETT DAVIS
Defendant:
SERGEANT MAKALE KING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. KING et al
as 1:2021cv00151
Plaintiff:
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY and AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant:
RONNIE KING, MORGAN & MORGAN, PPLC, W. CARL REYNOLDS, P.C. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
KING v. APPLING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2021cv00138
Plaintiff:
BRANDON O'NEAL KING
Defendant:
APPLING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, BAXLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, APPLING COUNTY DETENTION CENTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NEGRIN v. KING et al
as 5:2021cv00269
Plaintiff:
ERIC M NEGRIN
Defendant:
Captain BUSTER KING, LIEUTENANT ENRIQUE MARCUS, NURSE TINA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CAVANAH et al v. CHATMAN et al
as 5:2021cv00262
Plaintiff:
PERRY B CAVANAH, STEVEN L EADS, LEWIS M CLARK and others
Defendant:
SHERIFF RICHARD CHATMAN, CAPTAIN BUSTER KING, LEUTINENT ENRIQUE MARCUS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NEGRIN v. CHAPMAN et al
as 5:2021cv00245
Plaintiff:
ERIC MATTHEW NEGRIN
Defendant:
RICHARD CHAPMAN, CAPTAIN BUSTER KING and NURSE TINA DOE
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.
