Cases 21 - 30 of 65
Shahram Shakouri v. Glen Whitfield, et al
as 17-20738
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SHAHRAM SHAKOURI
Defendant - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, KELLI WARD, MELODEE BLALOCK and others
The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Gray et al
as 4:2017cv00763
Plaintiff:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Defendant:
Cynthia Gray, Melodee Gray and Toni Terry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Rose v. Mills et al
as 1:2017cv02778
Plaintiff:
Kevin Scott Rose
Defendant:
James W. Mills, Terry Barnard, Jacqueline Bunn and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Shakouri v. Whitfield
as 4:2017cv00096
Plaintiff:
Sharam Shakouri
Defendant:
Lori Davis , Kelli Ward , Melodee Blalock and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
REGA et al v. SOUTHWESTERN AREA AGENCY ON AGING et al
as 2:2016cv01779
Plaintiff:
ROBERT GENE REGA and JOAN MARY REGA
Defendant:
SOUTHWESTERN AREA AGENCY ON AGING, LESLIE GREENFELL, ROBERTA TAYLOR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Brooks et al
as 1:2016cv00466
Plaintiff:
Chadlen DeWayne Smith
Defendant:
Jakob Brooks, Burns, Schuller and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DeVan v. Meldrum et al
as 1:2016cv00156
Plaintiff:
Evin DeVan
Defendant:
Jonathan Meldrum, Melodee Armfield, Juan Ibarra and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Carter v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
as 2:2016cv03044
Plaintiff:
Melodee Carter
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Joyner v. Christon et al
as 1:2015cv00472
Plaintiff:
Miguel Charles Joyner
Defendant:
B. Christon, Terrie Rosenthal, Clinton E. Blake and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv02076
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
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.
