Cases 91 - 100 of 448
Randy Lassiter, Jr. v. Norfolk Police Department
as 19-7783
Defendant / Appellee:
J. R. OYOLA, Detective and NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Police Operation Center
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RANDY LEE LASSITER, JR.
Not Yet Classified:
ALEXANDER KAY, Detective
Josh Bowman
as 19-6364
Respondent:
BERT BOYD, Warden and RANDY LEE, Warden
Petitioner:
In re: JOSH L. BOWMAN
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2019cv01037
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jent v. Verdon
as 3:2019cv01059
Plaintiff:
Randy Lee Jent
Defendant:
Heather Verdon
Not Yet Classified:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lassiter Jr. v. Norfolk Police Department et al
as 1:2019cv01462
Plaintiff:
Randy Lee Lassiter Jr.
Defendant:
Alexander Kay, J.R. Oyola and Norfolk Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jent v. Warden
as 3:2019cv01017
Petitioner:
Randy Lee Jent and Randy Jent
Respondent:
Warden
Not Yet Classified:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
RINDAHL v. ROBERTSON et al
as 1:2019cv03322
Defendant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNKOWN AGENTS, JACQUELINE ROBERTSON, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and others
Plaintiff:
RANDY LEE RINDAHL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USA v. Randy Hall
as 19-30245
Defendant / Appellant:
RANDY LEE HALL
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Josh Bowman v. Randy Lee
as 19-6242
Petitioner / Appellant:
JOSH L. BOWMAN
Respondent / Appellee:
RANDY LEE, Warden
DYESS et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2019cv17427
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Plaintiff:
RANDY LEE DYESS and ZELL MAE DYESS
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
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.
