Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00307
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Davidson v. State of North Carolina
as 3:2022cv00342
Plaintiff:
Chris Ryan Davidson
Defendant:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Davidson v. United States of America
as 3:2022cv00333
Plaintiff:
Chris Ryan Davidson
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00224
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227
Ashcraft, et al v. Conoco, Inc., et al
as 7:1995cv00187
Plaintiff:
Hurshel L. Ashcraft , All Plaintiffs , Frances L. Ashcraft and others
Defendant:
Conoco, Inc. , Kayo Oil Company and Triangle Facilities, Inc.
Movant:
United States of America , J. Harold Seagle, George Rountree, III and others
Respondent:
Kirsten B. Mitchell , Cory Reiss and Wilmington Morning Star
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 6901 Resource & Recovery Act
Davis v. Davidson Mortgage et al
as 5:2009cv00139
Plaintiff:
Charles A. Davis
Defendant:
Davidson Mortgage, Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., Brock & Scott, PLLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
v. Davidson et al
as 3:2007cv00349
Defendant:
Dennis Davidson
Claimant:
DePuy Spine Sales Limited Partnership
Respondent:
Ted Rowe and Medical Edge Technologies, Inc.
Movant:
Dennis Davidson
Cause Of Action: no cause specified
Davidson v. DePuy Spine Sales Limited Partnership et al
as 3:2007mc00098
Petitioner:
Dennis Davidson
Respondent:
DePuy Spine Sales Limited Partnership, Ted Rowe and Medical Edge Technologies, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT v. DAVIDSON
as 1:2007mc00010
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Defendant:
LAWRENCE U. DAVIDSON, III
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.
