Cases 41 - 50 of 78
FREEMAN v. FADD et al
as 1:2016cv02134
Plaintiff:
MARK ELLIOTT FREEMAN
Defendant:
FADD, JOHN HESS, HANK WRIGHT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
In RE: BRYANT CUNNINGHAM
as 1:2016mc02100
Appellant:
BRYANT CUNNINGHAM
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv01037
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
SMITH v. MULLENS et al
as 1:2016cv01021
Plaintiff:
DAVID L. SMITH
Defendant:
GRAHAM C. MULLENS, MIKE EASLEY and BILLY BRYANT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
REYNOLDS v. BROWN et al
as 1:2015cv02157
Plaintiff:
NATHANAEL LENARD REYNOLDS
Defendant:
TYLER BRYANT BROWN and EARNEST A. FINNEY, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
EQUITAS DISABILITY ADVOCATES, LLC v. DALEY, DEBOFSKY AND BRYANT, P.C. et al
as 1:2015cv00611
Plaintiff:
EQUITAS DISABILITY ADVOCATES, LLC
Defendant:
DALEY, DEBOFSKY AND BRYANT, P.C. and JONATHAN FEIGENBAUM
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0010
LOTT v. KEMP et al
as 1:2015mc00466
Plaintiff:
HENRY LOTT
Defendant:
RALPH KEMP, JERRY SIKES, RON COLE and others
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv00521
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
EQUITAS DISABILITY ADVOCATES, LLC v. BRYANT et al
as 1:2014cv01644
Plaintiff:
EQUITAS DISABILITY ADVOCATES, LLC
Defendant:
DAVID A. BRYANT and FREDERICK DALEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO. N.A. F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST CO. N.A. AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, F/K/A JPMORGAN CHASE BANK .... et al v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
as 1:2014cv00747
Defendant:
PERRY M. BRYANT and DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Plaintiff:
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO. N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1444
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.
