Cases 31 - 40 of 7,644
Renee Stingley, et al v. Laci Transport Inc., et al
as 24-1612
Plaintiff:
RENEE STINGLEY, EARNEST SMITH, JELTHER SEPT and others
Defendant:
LACI TRANSPORT INC. and VLADETA MARKOVIC, individually
ALSTON v. LITTLE et al
as 2:2024cv01574
Plaintiff:
LAMAR ALSTON
Defendant:
SECRETARY GEORGE LITTLE, SUPT. SORBER, SUPT. TERRA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Marshall et al v. 3M Company et al
as 2:2024cv00458
Defendant:
3M Company, Du Pont De Nemours Inc, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Charles C Marshall, George P Keary, Mark Kellianen and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Hill v. Taylor et al (INMATE 1)
as 3:2024cv00224
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Lamar Hill
Defendant:
Heath Taylor and Steve Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Paris v. Mosley
as 6:2024cv00049
Petitioner:
Lamar Paris
Respondent:
Jamie Mosley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Wright v. Richardson et al
as 4:2024cv00304
Defendant:
Deshon Anderson, Cedric Lamar Richardson, Dawn Palmer and others
Plaintiff:
Bridgett Wright
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Andrews et al v. 3M Company et al
as 2:2024cv10897
Plaintiff:
Gerald E. Andrews, Mary Margaret Baker, John Franklin Bishop and others
Defendant:
3M Company, AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc., AMEREX CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
MADDOX v. MIMS et al
as 5:2024cv00110
Plaintiff:
VIRGIL LAMAR MADDOX
Defendant:
CHARLES MIMS, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, COMMISSIONER TYRONE OLIVER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv02734
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
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.
