Cases 11 - 20 of 170
TOLES v. REAGLE et al
as 1:2023cv01587
Plaintiff:
TYRONE TOLES
Defendant:
D. REAGLE, M. STAMPER, STEELE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tole v. AFAM Concept, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv05635
Defendant:
Beauty Bell Enterprises LLC, AFAM Concept, Inc. doing business as JF Labs, Inc., Avlon Industries and others
Plaintiff:
Pervis Tole
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2023cv02042
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Harley Allen, et al v. BP Exploration & Production Inc, et al
as 23-11707
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HARLEY DWAYNE ALLEN, SHON BARKLEY, JEFFREY BEARD and others
Defendant / Appellee:
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY
Not Classified By Court:
SERVICE
TOLES v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv09485
Plaintiff:
DURYA TOLES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Toles v. United States of America
as 7:2023cv00249
Plaintiff:
Dennis Toles
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
Raymond Bradford v. Valley, et al
as 23-15032
Plaintiff / Appellant:
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD
Defendant / Appellee:
VALLEY, HERNANDEZ, Social Worker, HERRERA, Recreational Therapist and others
Neira Marquez v. Lamond et al
as 2:2023cv00083
Plaintiff:
Jonathan William Neira Marquez
Defendant:
Marsha Lamond, Samson Chadlany, Alatashe Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TOLES v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv20970
Plaintiff:
JERRY DWAYNE TOLES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Fancher et al v. United States of America
as 2:2022cv00026
Plaintiff:
David Fancher, Lee Futrell, John Orue and others
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
