Cases 11 - 20 of 22
Huff v. Edenfield
as 1:2011cv00019
Petitioner:
James Eli Huff, Jr.
Respondent:
Karen Edenfield
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
IN RE: FAILURE TO COMPLY
as 1:2010mc00069
Respondent:
TIMOTHY PAUL ALCORN, PAUL NEJAT ALP, DANIEL BAXTER WANN ALTMAN and others
In Re:
IN THE MATTER OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS AND/OR NONPAYMENT OF ATTORNEY REGISTRATION FEES
BARKLEY et al v. A.C. AND S. INC. et al
as 2:2009cv82736
Defendant:
GASKET HOLDINGS, INC., A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC., WEIL MCLAIN COMPANY, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES ELI BARKLEY and BARBARA BARKLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Huff v. Chandler
as 1:2009cv00129
Petitioner:
James Eli Huff, Jr.
Respondent:
Rodney Chandler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Huff v. Chandler
as 7:2009cv00072
Petitioner:
James Eli Huff, Jr.
Respondent:
Rodney Chandler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Huff, II v. Neil et al
as 4:2009cv02000
Plaintiff:
James Eli Huff, II
Defendant:
Toni Neil, Scott Fauver, Unknown Named Federal Bureau Of Prisons Medical Staff and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
IN RE: FAILURE TO COMPLY
as 1:2009mc00077
In Re:
IN THE MATTER OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS AND/OR NONPAYMENT OF ATTORNEY REGISTRATION FEES
Respondent:
DAWN DESIREE CUMMINGS, FAZIA DEEN-BACCHUS, LISA MARIE DIRIG and others
James Huff, II v. Linda Sanders
as 08-3975
Petitioner - Appellant:
James Eli Huff, II
Respondent - Appellee:
Linda Sanders, Warden, FCC - Forrest City, Arkansas
RUTHERFORD v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION
as 2:2008cv85413
Plaintiff:
JAMES ELY RUTHERFORD, JAMES ELY RUTHERFORD and JAMES ELY RUTHERFORD
Defendant:
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: Diversity
James Ely v. E.D. Bullard Co., et al.
as PAE/2:08-CV-61141
Defendant:
E.D. Bullard Co
Plaintiff:
James Ely
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.
