Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Sweet v. Nunn
as 4:2022cv00004
Petitioner:
Dwight Franklin Sweet
Respondent:
Scott Nunn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
McGee v. Miller
as 4:2011cv00011
Petitioner:
Dwight Lowaine McGee
Respondent:
David Miller
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Chatkehoodle v. Porter et al
as 4:2010cv00615
Plaintiff:
Tara Chatkehoodle
Defendant:
Victor Porter , Otis Gaddis , Sam Troglin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson, et al v. Tulsa, City of
as 4:1994cv00039
Plaintiff:
Roy C Johnson , Mark A Moore , Dwight E Jackson and others
Defendant:
Tulsa, City of
Intervenor_defendant:
Lodge 93 Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #93
Pecial_master:
John A Gaberino, Jr
Claimant:
Matthew Wick
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Elmore-Deville et al v. United States of America
as 4:2009cv00736
Plaintiff:
Josephine Elmore-Deville, Josephine Elmore-Deville, Dwight Deville and others
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2009cv00669
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Sullivan v. Social Security Administration
as 4:2009cv00325
Plaintiff:
Dwight Sullivan
Defendant:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (RSI)
Compton v. BNSF Railway Company
as 4:2007cv00328
Plaintiff:
Dwight Compton, Dwight Compton and Dwight Compton
Defendant:
BNSF Railway Company, BNSF Railway Company and BNSF Railway Company
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act
Andrews et al v. Panter et al
as 4:2007cv00200
Plaintiff:
Eddie L Andrews, Rodney Class, Charles D Spencer and others
Defendant:
Deanell Recca Tacha, Jerry Lee Andrews, Alberto Gonzales and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
