Cases 21 - 30 of 31
Craig Moore v. Secretary, DOC, et al
as 10-13867
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CRAIG ANDRA MOORE
Defendant - Appellee:
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HAROLD PARKER, MR, Primary Care Provider ARNP APACI, COX, MR, CMTC Medical Technician and others
Parker et al v. Wall et al
as 1:2010cv00040
Plaintiff:
Harold Parker
Defendant:
Ashbel T. Wall, Nancy Bailey, James Weeden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
MOORE v. MCNEIL et al
as 5:2010cv00005
Defendant:
CRAIG ANDRA MOORE, WALTER MCNEIL, JOHN PALMER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parker v. Bender et al
as 1:2009cv12230
Plaintiff:
Harold Parker
Defendant:
James Bender, Carol Mici, Roland Rheault and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Parker v. Weeden et al
as 1:2009cv00510
Plaintiff:
Harold Parker
Defendant:
James Weeden, Michele Auger, Mathew Kettle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PARKER et al v. A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC. et al
as 2:2009cv87695
Plaintiff:
CHRISTINE PARKER, CHRISTINE PARKER, HAROLD PARKER and others
Defendant:
A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC., AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Parker v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections
as 1:2009cv00433
Petitioner:
Harold Parker
Defendant:
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harold Parker v. Abco Industries, Inc., et al.
as PAE/2:08-CV-72330
Defendant:
Abco Industries, Inc
Plaintiff:
Harold Parker
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2008cv04857
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
PARKER v. ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv72330
Plaintiff:
HAROLD PARKER
Defendant:
ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC., AEROQUUIP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AEROQUIP CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
