Cases 31 - 40 of 52
Tilley v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2015cv00437
Plaintiff:
Thomas Morgan Tilley
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv01232
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv01231
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
SIMS v. MORGAN et al
as 2:2014cv04367
Plaintiff:
PHILLIP SIMS
Defendant:
THOMAS MORGAN, JOSEPH F. IACUZIO and CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas Soper, II v. Jim Woolf
as 14-35248
Petitioner - Appellant:
THOMAS MORGAN SOPER, II
Respondent - Appellee:
JIM WOOLF
Peter Palmer v. Glenn Savona, et al
as 13-17261
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PETER MICHAEL PALMER
Defendant - Appellee:
GLENN A. SAVONA, individually and in his official capacity as Prescott City Prosecutor and husband, JANE DOE SAVONA, wife, DAN MURRAY, individually and in his official capacity as City of Prescott police department employee and husband and others
Morgan et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2013cv25001
Plaintiff:
Darlene Morgan and Thomas Morgan
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc. , Tissue Science Laboratories Limited , Ethicon, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Iris Gantt v. Colvin Morgan
as 13-2168
Plaintiff - Appellant:
IRIS SAPP GANTT
Defendant - Appellee:
COLVIN THOMAS MORGAN, a/k/a Tom Morgan, a/k/a C. T. Morgan, a/k/a Colvin T. Morgan and THURMO MEDICAL SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC.
Soper v. Woolf
as 4:2013cv00302
Petitioner:
Thomas Morgan Soper, II
Respondent:
Jim Woolf
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Morgan v. Hughes County Sheriffs Office et al
as 3:2013cv03012
Plaintiff:
Thomas Morgan
Defendant:
Hughes County Sheriffs Office and Douglas Weber
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
