Cases 121 - 130 of 154
Smith v. Blackshear Family Practice et al
as 5:2010cv00041
Plaintiff:
Larry Dwayne Smith
Defendant:
Blackshear Family Practice, Scott Mathis and Ware County Jail
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mathis v. Haynes
as 2:2010cv00060
Petitioner:
Russell Todd Mathis
Respondent:
Anthony Haynes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
HSBC Bank USA, NA v. Mathis
as 1:2010cv00831
Plaintiff:
HSBC Bank USA, NA
Defendant:
Teresa N. Mathis
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv00122
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Jones v. The Shaw Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2009cv02775
Plaintiff:
Donald G. Jones
Defendant:
The Shaw Group, Inc., LA. Land Trust, K/B Home-Shaw of Louisiana LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Type:
Other Statutes
Jones v. The Shaw Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2009mi00385
Plaintiff:
Donald G. Jones
Defendant:
The Shaw Group, Inc., LA. Land Trust, K/B Home-Shaw of Louisiana LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Type:
Other Statutes
Dean v. The United States et al
as 1:2009mi00277
Plaintiff:
Thomas G. Dean
Defendant:
The United States, The State of Georgia, Douglas County, Georgia and others
Movant:
C T Corporation System
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Consipracy to interfere with civil rights
Type:
Civil Rights
Stokes et al v. Lowndes County Ga. et al
as 7:2009cv00088
Plaintiff:
Porterfield Stokes and Dwight Mathis
Defendant:
Lowndes County Ga., Lowndes County Jail, Chris Prine and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mathis v. Farrel Corporation
as 1:2009cv00093
Plaintiff:
John Mathis and John Mathis
Defendant:
Farrel Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv01395
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
