Cases 11 - 20 of 37
Alverson v. Ellington et al
as 2:2017cv00474
Petitioner:
Rodney Alverson
Respondent:
Edward Ellington and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Alverson v. Ellington et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2017cv00057
Plaintiff:
Rodney Alverson
Defendant:
Edward Ellington and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Alverson v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP
as 4:2017cv00106
Plaintiff:
Cathy Alverson
Defendant:
Wal-Mart Stores East LP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Alverson v. Dunn et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2016cv00928
Plaintiff:
Rodney Alverson
Defendant:
Jefferson Dunn , Edward Ellington , Timothy McCorvey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Alverson et al v. Community Health Systems Inc et al
as 2:2014cv01620
Defendant:
Gadsden Regional Physician Group Practice LLC, Foley Hospital Corporation, Anniston HMA LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Cynthia K Horgan, Joel Lovelace, Joshua Capps and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Alverson et al v. PNC Bank, N.A.
as 1:2014cv00387
Plaintiff:
Ernest Michael Alverson and Sadie B. Alverson
Defendant:
PNC Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Alverson v. Crow, et al. (INMATE 1)
as 2:2014cv00729
Plaintiff:
Rodney Alverson
Defendant:
John Crow , Louis Boyd and Kim Tobias Thomas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Alverson v. Copeland et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2014cv00648
Plaintiff:
Rodney Alverson
Defendant:
Ms. Copeland , Corizon Medical Services , Nurse Giles and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Belue v. Benn et al
as 2:2014cv00688
Plaintiff:
Donald Ray Belue
Defendant:
John R Benn, Gary W Alverson and Vicki Gamble
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 2
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Alverson v. Boyd et al
as 2:2012cv02088
Petitioner:
Rodney Dale Alverson
Respondent:
Louis Boyd and Attorney General for the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
