Cases 11 - 17 of 17
Adell et al v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. et al
as 3:2010cv00122
Plaintiff:
All Plaintiffs, All Plaintiffs, All Plaintiffs and others
Defendant:
Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., Milton E. McGregor, Multimedia Games, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv00954
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
United States of America et al v. Petters et al
as 2:2008mc03427
Plaintiff:
United States of America and United States of America
Defendant:
Thomas Joseph Petters, Thomas Joseph Petters, Thomas Joseph Petters and others
Receiver:
Douglas A. Kelley
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Thomason, et al v. Russell Corporation
as 3:1979cv00113
Plaintiff:
Steve Thomason , Dewayne Leonard , May Doris Robinson and others
Defendant:
Russell Corporation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
United States of America v. Petters et al
as 1:2008mc00018
Plaintiff:
United States of America and United States of America
Defendant:
Thomas Joseph Petters, Petters Company, Inc., PCI, Petters Group Worldwide, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Type:
Other Statutes
United States of America et al v. Petters et al
as 2:2008mc03425
Plaintiff:
United States of America and United States of America
Defendant:
Thomas Joseph Petters, Thomas Joseph Petters, Thomas Joseph Petters and others
Intervenor:
Ritchie Capital Management, et al, Interlachen Harriet Investments Limited, Interlachen Harriet Investments Limited and others
Receiver:
Douglas A. Kelley, William Procida and William Procida
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Nabors v. Peco Foods, Inc.
as 7:2008cv01384
Plaintiff:
Coleman Nabors, Jr.
Defendant:
Peco Foods, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
