Cases 31 - 40 of 46
Toliver v. Sherman Police Department et al
as 4:2013cv00364
Plaintiff:
Andrew Toliver
Defendant:
Sherman Police Department, Catherine Craig, D. Roberson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Roberson, Sr. v. Giesecke & Devrient America, Inc.
as 5:2013cv00064
Plaintiff:
Alvin D. Roberson, Sr.
Defendant:
Giesecke & Devrient America, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2661 Family Medical Leave Act
ROBERSON v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY et al
as 3:2012cv07870
Plaintiff:
CRYSTAL D. ROBERSON and JOHN ROBERSON
Defendant:
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY , JOHN DOES 1-100, ABC COS. 1-100 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Roberson v. McDonald Transit Associates, Inc.
as 3:2012cv00018
Plaintiff:
Carrol D. Roberson
Defendant:
McDonald Transit Associates, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2011cv00333
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
City of Southaven v. Roberson
as 2:2010cv00165
Plaintiff:
City of Southaven
Defendant:
Carrol D. Roberson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Roberson v. Newton Wall Company Inc
as 5:2009cv00691
Plaintiff:
Kristin D Roberson
Defendant:
Newton Wall Company Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jimmy D. Roberson v. Abco Industries, Inc., et al.
as PAE/2:08-CV-72473
Defendant:
Abco Industries, Inc
Plaintiff:
Jimmy D. Roberson
ROBERSON v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al
as 2:2008cv80050
Plaintiff:
WARREN D. ROBERSON
Defendant:
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, ABER INSULATION, ABNEY MILLS and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
ROBERSON v. ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv72473
Plaintiff:
JIMMY D ROBERSON
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.
