Cases 11 - 20 of 21
BOOTH v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2011cv01782
Plaintiff:
SHAUN K. BOOTH
Defendant:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, HARLEY LAPPIN, JOYCE K. CONLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ITPE PENSION FUND et al v. STRONGHOLD SECURITY, LLC
as 1:2011cv00940
Plaintiff:
ITPE PENSION FUND , DENNIS R. ARRINGTON , JERRY M. BOWDEN and others
Defendant:
STRONGHOLD SECURITY, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
BURKE v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2011cv00717
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN G. BURKE
Defendant:
HARLEY LAPPIN, JOYCE CONLEY, D. SCOTT DODRILL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CONLEY v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
as 1:2010cv02139
Plaintiff:
DOROTHY CONLEY
Defendant:
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
BREHM v. CONLEY
as 1:2010cv01550
Plaintiff:
ROBERT BREHM
Defendant:
JOYCE K. CONLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PINSON v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2010cv00092
Plaintiff:
JEREMY PINSON
Defendant:
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, JOYCE K. CONLEY, RAYMOND E. HOLT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv02372
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
ITPE PENSION FUND et al v. JENKINS SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC.
as 1:2009cv01068
Plaintiff:
ITPE PENSION FUND, DENNIS ARRINGTON, JERRY BOWDEN and others
Defendant:
JENKINS SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
WALLACE et al v. YIM et al
as 1:2009cv00929
Plaintiff:
RICHARD WALLACE and SALIMA WALLACE
Defendant:
SAM YIM, BARRY W. VANRENSTER, KEVIN KELLY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HURT v. LAPPIN et al
as 1:2009cv00811
Plaintiff:
KEENAN HURT
Defendant:
HARLEY LAPPIN, JOYCE K. CONLEY and OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
