Cases 41 - 50 of 57
Davis v. Green Dot Corporation et al
as 3:2014cv01007
Plaintiff:
Clay Adam Davis
Defendant:
Green Dot Corporation and Green Dot Bank
Cause Of Action: Restrictions on Use of Telephone Equipment
Adam Davis, Jr. v. Ray Hobb
as 14-2717
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Adam Davis, Jr.
Defendant - Appellee:
Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Gregory v. Fed Ex National LTL, Inc. et al
as 3:2014cv00572
Plaintiff:
Brian Gregory
Defendant:
Fed Ex National LTL, Inc. and Daniel Adam Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Davis et al v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. et al
as 1:2014cv11359
Plaintiff:
Adam Davis and Marvin Davis, Jr.
Defendant:
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC., Fresenius USA, Inc., Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Davis v. West Fraser, Inc.
as 1:2013cv01019
Plaintiff:
Adam Davis, Jr.
Defendant:
West Fraser, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Davis v. Hobbs
as 5:2012cv00386
Plaintiff:
Adam Davis , Jr
Defendant:
Ray Hobbs
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bryner et al v. Portage County et al
as 5:2012cv02082
Plaintiff:
Robert A. Bryner and Tiffany M. Bryner
Defendant:
Portage County, Ohio/Portage County Board of Commissioners, David W. Doak, John Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. Russell
as 3:2012cv05645
Petitioner:
Adam Davis
Respondent:
Scott Russell
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gregory v. Fed Ex National LTL, Inc. et al
as 3:2011cv01128
Plaintiff:
Brian Gregory
Defendant:
Fed Ex National LTL, Inc. and Daniel Adam Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Fleming v. Fisher Technical Services, Inc. et al
as 2:2011cv00499
Defendant:
Adam Davis, James Fairorth, Scott Fisher and others
Plaintiff:
Samuel P. Fleming
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
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.
