Cases 11 - 20 of 82
Kendan Fonville v. United States
as 22-2419
Petitioner:
Kendan LaJordan Fonville
Respondent:
United States of America
Fonville v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv00256
Plaintiff:
Donnie Fonville and Ashley Fonville
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Bullard v. Coley et al
as 5:2022ct03005
Plaintiff:
William Domonic Bullard
Defendant:
R. Coley, D. Joyner, Stephen Fonville and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
US v. Shawn Fonville
as 21-4522
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
SHAWN SCOTT FONVILLE
US v. Shawn Fonville
as 21-4523
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
SHAWN SCOTT FONVILLE
Fonville v. Kroger Clinton MS
as 3:2021cv00487
Plaintiff:
Anthony Fonville
Defendant:
Kroger Clinton MS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Peche v. Herring et al
as 5:2021ct03147
Defendant:
Mr. Herring, Mr. Fonville, Ms. Coley and others
Plaintiff:
David Peche
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
The Wing Guru, INc. v. Baker, et al
as 2:2021cv02260
Not Classified By Court:
Clerk W. Aaron Hall
Plaintiff:
The Wing Guru, INc.
Defendant:
Marcus Baker d/b/a Terrell Fonville and Associates, LLC and Terrell Fonville and Associates, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
McClain v. Fonville et al
as 5:2020ct03339
Defendant:
Officer Cato, Officer Tolbert, Lt. Summers and others
Plaintiff:
Naquan Floyd McClain
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chung et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorrectly designated as Doe 1 et al
as 3:2020cv06953
Plaintiff:
Carlo Napolitano, John E. Uhri, Linda B. Robertson and others
Defendant:
Sanofi US Services Inc., incorrectly designated as Doe 5, Grocery Outlet, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, incorrectly designated as Doe 6 and others
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.
