Cases 11 - 20 of 21
DAVIS v. COOK INCORPORATED et al
as 1:2019cv01524
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL LEON DAVIS, JR.
Defendant:
COOK INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL LLC and WILLIAM COOK EUROPE APS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Davis v. Superintendent
as 2:2014cv00034
Petitioner:
Michael James Davis
Respondent:
Superintendent
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Davis v. The People of the State of Indiana
as 2:2013cv00066
Petitioner:
Michael James Davis
Respondent:
State of Indiana The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DAVIS v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2013cv00232
Petitioner:
MICHAEL JAMES DAVIS
Respondent:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davis v. Superintendent
as 3:2011cv00451
Petitioner:
Michael J Davis
Respondent:
Superintendent
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DAVIS v. WRIGLEY
as 1:2009cv00501
Petitioner:
MICHAEL A. DAVIS
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT WRIGLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DAVIS v. SHERIFF OF HENERY COUNTY BUTCH BAKER et al
as 1:2008cv01310
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL A. DAVIS and MICHAEL A. DAVIS
Defendant:
SHERIFF OF HENERY COUNTY BUTCH BAKER, JESSE TRENNENPOHO, PATRICK CAMPBELL and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
DAVIS v. WRIGLEY
as 1:2008cv00758
Petitioner:
MICHAEL A. DAVIS
Respondent:
JEFFERY WRIGLEY
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
DAVIS v. FRENCH et al
as 1:2008cv00035
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ALAN DAVIS
Defendant:
PATRICIA A. FRENCH and MARY G. WILLIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAVIS v. HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MFG., INC. et al
as 4:2007cv00037
Defendant:
HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MFG., INC., HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MFG., INC., HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MFG., INC. and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL G. DAVIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability
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.
