Cases 91 - 100 of 213
Ross et al v. The Lane Construction Corporation et al
as 3:2016cv02071
Plaintiff:
Nytrellis B. Ross and Reginald B. Ross
Defendant:
The Lane Construction Corporation , AECOM C&E INC. , AECOM Services, Inc. and others
Cross_plaintiff:
The Lane Construction Corporation
Cross_defendant:
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Lane v. Sullivan County Justice Center et al
as 2:2016mc00005
Plaintiff:
Thurman P Lane
Defendant:
Sullivan County Justice Center and Medical Department
Lane v. Sullivan County Justice Center et al
as 2:2016cv00248
Plaintiff:
Thurman P Lane
Defendant:
Sullivan County Justice Center and Medical Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
O'Kroley v. Mangrum et al
as 3:2016cv01345
Plaintiff:
Colin O'Kroley
Defendant:
Cheryl Mangrum, John Doe, Williamson County Library and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Clair v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
as 2:2016cv02263
Plaintiff:
Alexandra Clair
Defendant:
Bank of America, N.A., Recontrust Company N.A., Bank of New York Mellon and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00087
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Lane v. Social Security Administration (TV1)
as 3:2016cv00164
Plaintiff:
Linda Lee Lane
Defendant:
Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Lane v. Life Insurance Company of North America (RLJ2)
as 2:2016cv00056
Plaintiff:
Mary Lane
Defendant:
Life Insurance Company of North America
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Lane v. USA
as 2:2016cv00021
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Daniel H Lane, Jr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Rowe v. Hayworth et al (PLR2)
as 1:2016cv00013
Plaintiff:
Michael Lane Rowe
Defendant:
Eric Eugene Hayworth and WEL Companies, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
