Cases 11 - 20 of 23
US v. Darrell Holme
as 15-6300
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DARRELL WALTER HOLMES
Mark Tibbs v. Gregg Hershberger
as 14-7332
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARK TIBBS
Defendant - Appellee:
GREGG L. HERSHBERGER, Warden, J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner, SCOTT OAKLEY, Exec. Dir. and others
Defendant:
DANIEL M. LONG, Judge
Holmes v. USA
as 4:2013cv00113
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Darrell Walter Holmes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Tibbs v. Hershberger et al
as 1:2013cv02340
Plaintiff:
Mark Tibbs
Defendant:
Gregg Hershberger, Lt. Dickens, J. Michael Stouffer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sewell v. Warden
as 8:2011cv01094
Plaintiff:
Emmanuel E. Sewell
Defendant:
Warden, Virginia A. Burkhaeart, Kathleen Green and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
US v. Darrell Holme
as 10-4738
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DARRELL WALTER HOLMES
Emmanuel Sewell v. Kathleen Green
as 10-6392
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
KATHLEEN GREEN, MICHAEL KING, BRIAN ROMINES and others
Defendant - None:
WARDEN
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv00176
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Walter Holmes v. Bruce Curtis
as 09-1676
Petitioner - Appellant:
WALTER HOLMES
Respondent - Appellee:
BRUCE L. CURTIS
Walter Holmes, et al v. Kimco Realty Corp, et al
as 08-4834
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WALTER HOLMES and LISA HOLMES, Husband and Wife
Defendant - Appellee:
KIMCO REALTY CORP and LOWES HOME CTR INC, A corporation of the Sate of North Carolina, Authorized to do business in New Jersey
Third Party - Appellee:
PRICE LEGACY CORP, as landlord successor by merger to Price Enterprises, Inc., a Maryland Corporation
Not Party - Appellee:
DAVID FLACK, DBA Bountiful Acres and GENERAL CASUALTY INS CO
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.
