Cases 91 - 100 of 641
Spurlock v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutional Division (CID) et al
as 9:2021cv00211
Plaintiff:
Christopher Spurlock
Defendant:
Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutional Division (CID) and Donald Muniz
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Giles et al
as 1:2021cv00540
Plaintiff:
Jorden Brown
Defendant:
Samuel Giles, Eric Spurlock, Randall Scott Lewis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Demetrius Loyd v. Edith Hacker, et al
as 21-5776
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DEMETRIUS LOYD
Defendant / Appellee:
EDITH HACKER and MICHELLE SPURLOCK
Foreman v. Gwathney et al
as 2:2021cv01076
Plaintiff:
Mack Arthur Foreman, Jr and Mack Auther Foreman, Jr
Defendant:
Leigh Gwathney, Dwayne Spurlock and Cliff Walker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Conklin-Bradley v. Laurel County, KY et al
as 6:2021cv00122
Plaintiff:
Kewan D. Conklin-Bradley
Defendant:
Laurel County, KY, Edith Hensley, Michelle Spurlock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Whipple v. Jessica, et al
as 6:2021cv00107
Defendant:
Laurel County, Edith Hacker, Jamie Mosley and others
Plaintiff:
Robert Z. Whipple, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv11501
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00362
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Adams v. Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles et al (MAG+)
as 2:2021cv00416
Defendant:
Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, Jill Stallworth, Leigh Gwathney and others
Plaintiff:
Timmy Earl Adams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Whipple v. Jessica
as 3:2021cv00208
Defendant:
Laurel County, Edith Hacker, Jamie Mosley and others
Plaintiff:
Robert Z Whipple, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
