Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Larry Muldrow v. State of Arkansas, et al
as 23-1813
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Larry Muldrow
Defendant / Appellee:
State of Arkansas, Hempstead County, Arkansas, Miller County, Arkansas and others
Hatfield v. Cadence Bank et al (MAG+)
as 3:2023cv00202
Plaintiff:
Akilah E. Hatfield
Defendant:
Cadence Bank, Shane Smith and Bailey Davenport
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Tippett-Rhodes et al v. Cadence Bank et al (MAG+)
as 2:2023cv00124
Defendant:
Cadence Bank, Bancorp South, State Farm General Insurance Companies and others
Plaintiff:
Latanya Tippett-Rhodes, Chardai Rhodes and Ivan Rhodes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Muldrow v. State of Arkansas et al
as 4:2022cv04122
Plaintiff:
Larry D. Muldrow
Defendant:
State of Arkansas, Hempstead County, Arkansas, Miller County, Arkansas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
MOORE FLEWELLEN v. COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
as 5:2022cv00208
Plaintiff:
BEVERLY LENA MOORE FLEWELLEN
Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIISTRATION and CADENCE BANK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
United States of America v. Cadence Bank, N.A.
as 1:2021cv03586
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Cadence Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 3601
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00752
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2020cv00510
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Pomeroy v. Cadence Bank
as 8:2013cv01543
Plaintiff:
Kenneth D. Pomeroy
Defendant:
Cadence Bank
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2013cv00185
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
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.
