Cases 41 - 50 of 88,039
Rivers v. United States
as 5:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
Maurice D. Rivers
Defendant:
United States
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
MIAL BEY v. HOOKS
as 1:2024cv00524
Petitioner:
YUSUFI BURTON MIAL BEY
Respondent:
ERIK HOOKS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blevins v. Maynor et al
as 5:2024cv00153
Petitioner:
Denver W. Blevins
Respondent:
Timothy Maynor, April Parker and State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00092
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Stone v. Director of BOP et al
as 5:2024ct03158
Plaintiff:
Samuel Stone
Defendant:
Director of BOP and NC DAC Prison Director
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CRAWFORD et al
as 1:2024cv00515
Plaintiff:
GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant:
PATRICIA COX CRAWFORD, SETH R. BERKY, BRANDY B. SHEWCOW and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Interpleader Action
Smith v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
as 5:2024cv00356
Plaintiff:
Don Smith
Defendant:
Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Chaidez v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
as 5:2024cv00354
Plaintiff:
Emmanuel Chaidez
Defendant:
Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Tolbert v. Scarantino
as 5:2024hc02121
Petitioner:
Richard Tolbert
Respondent:
Warden T. Scarantino
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Langley v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2024hc02122
Petitioner:
Darnell Langley
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
