Cases 21 - 30 of 35
Arnett v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al
as 4:2015cv02723
Plaintiff:
Robin Arnett
Defendant:
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Bates v. Adams et al
as 4:2015cv02124
Plaintiff:
Bradford Arnett Bates
Defendant:
Mark Adams and Bryan Kelldorf
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hall v. Stephens
as 4:2013cv03121
Petitioner:
William Arnett Hall
Respondent:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hall v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 7:2013cv00121
Petitioner:
William Arnett Hall
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Arnett v. Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID
as 4:2013cv00174
Petitioner:
Roger Dale Arnett
Respondent:
Rick Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Arnett et al v. Denton
as 1:2012cv00913
Plaintiff:
Teresa M. Arnett, Daniel Beard, Sharleen Pelzl and others
Defendant:
Frank Denton and State of Texas
Interested Party:
Texas Humane Legislation Network and The Humane Society of the United States
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2012cv00913
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition For Removal - Sex Discrimination/Harass
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2012cv00488
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal - Fair Labor Standards
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2011cv00043
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
646) 719-9434 (fax:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1334 Bankruptcy Appeal
Carson v. Arnette et al
as 3:2011cv00139
Plaintiff:
Arthur Carson
Defendant:
Dana Arnette and Carolyn Stovall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
