Cases 21 - 30 of 5,851
Hodges v. Beo
as 3:2024cv00272
Plaintiff:
Michael P. Hodges
Defendant:
Brittney Lynn Beo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338 Trademark Infringement
Smith v. McFarlin et al
as 3:2024cv00169
Plaintiff:
Patrick Ryan Smith
Defendant:
Patrick McFarlin, Sheriff Hodges and Q.C.H.C. Medical Company/Entity
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hodges v. Mesa, City of et al
as 2:2024cv00832
Plaintiff:
Barbara Ruth Hodges
Defendant:
Mesa, City of, K Newby, Unknown Party and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Kim Hodges v. Joseph Abram, et al
as 24-1300
Plaintiff:
KIM HODGES, personal representative for the estate of Michael Donte Molson
Defendant:
JOSEPH ABRAM, BRAXTON CROWDER, Deputy, JASON KELLEY, Lieutenant and others
Urve MaggittiIn re: Urve Maggitti
as 24-1660
Petitioner:
In re: URVE MAGGITTI
Respondent:
BRET M. BINDER, DEBRA RYAN, DANIEL E. ROLAND and others
Bell v. Clay et al
as 1:2024cv00604
Plaintiff:
Alphonso Bell
Defendant:
Clay and Hodges
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Richmond v. State of South Dakota et al
as 4:2024cv04067
Plaintiff:
Courtney Richmond
Defendant:
State of South Dakota, Trooper Jordan Anderson, Officer Kevin Krohn and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
Nord Hodges et al v. Passidomo et al
as 8:2024cv00879
Plaintiff:
Keto Nord Hodges, Meiko Seymour, Jarvis K. El-Amin and others
Defendant:
Kathleen Passidomo and Cord Byrd
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Alphonso Tanner v. French, et al
as 24-11098
Plaintiff:
ALPHONSO TARODD TANNER
Defendant:
FRENCH, CURRY, SKKRUBS and others
Hodge v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2024cv02619
Plaintiff:
Denise Hodge
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
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.
