Cases 81 - 90 of 602
Hencle et al v. Ditech Financial et al
as 0:2021cv60737
Defendant:
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and Ditech Financial
Plaintiff:
Veronica Mills-Burrell, Barrington Mills, Gary Bowen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Maes v. New Mexico Corrections Department et al
as 1:2021cv00287
Plaintiff:
Michael Maes
Defendant:
New Mexico Corrections Department, Mark Bowen, The GEO Group, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Mullins v. City of Murfreesboro, et al.
as 3:2021cv00208
Defendant:
Officer John Doe, Officer Bill Doe, Chief Michael Bowen and others
Plaintiff:
Tina Mullins
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DALE JR. v. BOWEN
as 1:2021cv00044
Plaintiff:
ROY DALE, JR
Defendant:
JUDGE ROONEY BOWEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
London v. Hollis et al
as 4:2021cv00815
Defendant:
Metro Transit Authority of Harris County Texas, Officer Patrick Bowens, Metro Police Department and others
Plaintiff:
Donavan A London
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Atsas v. Bowen et al
as 4:2021cv00366
Defendant:
matthew l bowen, Campbell City School District Board of Education, Ryan Young and others
Plaintiff:
phillip s atsas and Phillip S. Atsas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Rogers v. Benton County Sheriff's Office et al
as 5:2021cv05015
Plaintiff:
Charles Clarence Rogers, Jr.
Defendant:
Detective Matthew D. Cline, Benton County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Steven J. Scott and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00039
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Bowens v. City of Chicago et al
as 1:2021cv00278
Defendant:
Police Officers, Sean Bottom, #18938, CITY OF CHICAGO and others
Plaintiff:
Lamar Bowens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2020cv03707
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
