Cases 31 - 40 of 54
Staton v. Emerson et al
as 5:2014cv05080
Plaintiff:
Garry Staton
Defendant:
Kim Emerson, M.D. , Emerson Group, P.A. and Eureka Springs Hospital Homecare, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Riceland Foods Inc v. Gray Ritter & Graham PC et al
as 5:2013cv00326
Plaintiff:
Riceland Foods Inc
Defendant:
Gray Ritter & Graham PC , Don M Downing , Adam J Levitt and others
Counter_claimant:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC , Gray Ritter & Graham PC , Davis Bethune & Jones LLC and others
Counter_defendant:
Riceland Foods Inc
Cross_claimant:
Neblett Beard & Arsenault LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Emerson v. Hobbs
as 5:2013cv00136
Plaintiff:
Tina M Emerson
Defendant:
Ray Hobbs
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Emerson v. Hobbs et al
as 5:2012cv00449
Plaintiff:
Tina Emerson
Defendant:
Ray Hobbs and Dustin McDaniel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Emerson v. Williams et al
as 1:2012cv00129
Plaintiff:
Tina Emerson
Defendant:
Williams and Does
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Emerson v. Hobbs et al
as 5:2012cv05259
Plaintiff:
Tina Emerson
Defendant:
Ray Hobbs and Dustin McDaniel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Emerson v. Williams et al
as 5:2012cv05257
Plaintiff:
Tina Emerson
Defendant:
Williams, Mr., State Insurer or Hippa and Medicaid and Medicare
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Swift v. BancorpSouth Bank
as 4:2012mc00030
Plaintiff:
Shane Swift
Defendant:
BancorpSouth Bank
Movant:
Emerson Poynter LLP and Scott E Poynter
Emerson v. Maples
as 6:2012cv06116
Plaintiff:
Tina M. Emerson
Defendant:
Maples
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Emerson v. Miller
as 4:2012cv00506
Plaintiff:
Eric Emerson
Defendant:
Brian S Miller
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.
