Cases 71 - 80 of 91
USA v. David Harrell
as 10-10505
Plaintiff - Appellee:
USA
Defendant - Appellant:
DAVID HARRELL, a.k.a. Bruce Davis, a.k.a. David Smith, a.k.a. Darren Johnson, a.k.a. Bruce Kelley, a.k.a. Bruce Smith, a.k.a. Lil' Dave, a.k.a. Robbin Hood, a.k.a. David Johnson, a.k.a. James Davis
Davis v. Conagra Foods, Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv00235
Plaintiff:
James Davis
Defendant:
ConAgra Foods, Inc., Giant Food Inc., Giant Food Inc. and others
USA v. James Davis
as 10-30041
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JAMES DAVIS
Ricky Pickett v. Arnold Schwarzenegger et al
as 2:2008cv03955
Defendant:
Fred Aguiar, Ken Allen, Parole Agent Almazon and others
Movant:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Plaintiff:
Ricky Pickett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv02685
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Type:
Other Statutes
In re: John Daniels
as 09-6042
Movant:
In re: JOHN L. DANIELS, aka David Williams, aka James Davis
Respondent:
JOSEPH P. MEKO
Davis v. Roehrich
as 0:2009cv02155
Petitioner:
Henry James Davis
Respondent:
Ms. Roehrich and Ms. Roehrich
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Type:
Other Statutes
Adams et al v. Stanford Group Company et al
as 3:2009cv00334
Plaintiff:
Jerry Adams, Jerry Adams, Jerry Edrington and others
Defendant:
Stanford Group Company, Stanford Financial Group, Stanford International Bank LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Adams et al. v. Stanford Group Company et al
as 4:2009cv00474
Defendant:
Stanford Group Company, Stanford Financial Group, Stanford International Bank, LTD and others
Plaintiff:
Jerry Adams, Jerry Edrington, Michael Hicks and others
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.
