Cases 41 - 50 of 76
Mace v. Doyle et al
as 1:2017cv00239
Plaintiff:
Jerry Wayne Mace
Defendant:
Theresa S. Doyle, Dr. E. Yancey and Deerfield Medical Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Doyle v. Jackson et al
as 1:2016cv01520
Plaintiff:
Kevin Tijuan Doyle
Defendant:
Michele E. Jackson and Peggy Howard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bridges v. Corizon Prison Health Management et al
as 3:2014cv00803
Plaintiff:
Wayne Jeffrey Bridges
Defendant:
Corizon Prison Health Management, Mohammad Siddiqui, Ann Vance and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00461
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
Davis et al v. Singer et al
as 4:2013cv00007
Plaintiff:
William S. Davis, II, Baby J.F.D. and Estate of William Scott Davis Sr.,
Defendant:
Albert J. Singer, Wake County Governmenet, Danielle Doyle and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Hans et al v. FBR & Co.
as 1:2012cv00181
Plaintiff:
Peter D. Hans and Scott J. Doyle
Defendant:
FBR & Co.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Smith v. McCarthy et al
as 2:2012cv00078
Plaintiff:
Curtis Smith
Defendant:
McCarthy, Deputy Toabert, Deputy Lawson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. State of North Carolina et al
as 2:2011cv00571
Plaintiff:
William Scott Davis, Jr.
Defendant:
State of North Carolina, Beaverly Perdue, Melanie A. Shekita and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. State of North Carolina et al
as 2:2011cv00500
Plaintiff:
William Scott Davis, Jr.
Defendant:
State of North Carolina, Beaverly Perdue, Melanie A. Shekita and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Doyle v. Doe et al
as 7:2011cv00256
Defendant:
Anderson, Andrew, Lt. Brandenburg and others
Plaintiff:
Patrick Doyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
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.
