Cases 31 - 40 of 66
ROGERS v. PERRY
as 1:2013cv00926
Petitioner:
REGINALD LEE ROGERS, SR.
Respondent:
FRANK L. PERRY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ward, Jr v. Jenkins et al
as 1:2013cv02591
Petitioner:
Reginald Lee Ward, Jr
Respondent:
Charles A. Jenkins, Bonnie Fetzer and The Attorney General of the State of Maryland
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ROGERS v. SHANAHAN
as 1:2013cv00738
Petitioner:
REGINALD LEE ROGERS, SR.
Respondent:
KIERAN J. SHANAHAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ward, Jr v. Jenkins et al
as 1:2013cv02326
Petitioner:
Reginald Lee Ward, Jr
Respondent:
Charles A. Jenkins, Bonnie Fetzer and Douglass F. Gansler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROGERS v. SHANAHAN
as 1:2013cv00646
Respondent:
KIERAN J. SHANAHAN
Petitioner:
REGINALD LEE ROGERS, SR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cooper et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
as WVS/2:13-cv-18585
Plaintiff:
Brenda Kay Cooper and Reginald Lee Cooper
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc. , Sofradim Production SAS and Tissue Science Laboratories Limited
Cooper et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2013cv18585
Plaintiff:
Brenda Kay Cooper and Reginald Lee Cooper
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc., Sofradim Production SAS and Tissue Science Laboratories Limited
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
ROGERS v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
as 1:2013cv00547
Petitioner:
REGINALD LEE ROGERS, SR.
Respondent:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROGERS v. BROWN et al
as 1:2013cv00565
Plaintiff:
REGINALD LEE ROGERS, SR.
Defendant:
MICHAEL BROWN and SHEILA GOSS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Reginald Lee v. Mayor & City Council Baltimore
as 12-2257
Plaintiff - Appellant:
REGINALD LEE
Defendant - Appellee:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, JAY A. DACKMAN, P.A., ANTHONY J. DELAURENTIS, P.A. and others
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.
