Cases 41 - 49 of 49
HAIRSTON et al v. EASLEY et al
as 1:2007cv00704
Plaintiff:
IRENE F. HAIRSTON and PEGGY M. H. ROBINSON
Defendant:
MICHAEL EASLEY, THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, BRYANT THOMPSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Woody v. State of North Carolina et al
as 2:2007cv00032
Plaintiff:
Andre Lamar Woody
Defendant:
State of North Carolina, Michael F Easley, Lexis Publishing and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Worley v. Easley et al
as 3:2007cv00333
Plaintiff:
Willie D. Worley, Jr.
Defendant:
Michael Easley, Christain P. Hoell, Roy Copper and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
Gardner v. Easley et al
as 5:2007ct03104
Plaintiff:
Edward J. Gardner, IV
Defendant:
Michael F Easley, Beverly Perdue, John/Jane Does and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Becker v. Hudson et al
as 5:2007hc02109
Petitioner:
Jan F. Becker
Respondent:
Stewart Hudson, Virginia Lameneck, G.W. Bush and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barefoot v. King et al
as 5:2007ct03038
Plaintiff:
Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr.
Defendant:
James King, ., Marshall Hudson, Marvin L. Polk and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Crawford et al v. Easley et al
as 5:2007ct03032
Plaintiff:
Thomas Everette Crawford and Jarvis Deangelo Broadnax
Defendant:
Michael F Easley and Roy Cooper
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PARKER et al v. COOPER et al
as 1:2007cv00121
Plaintiff:
MONROE R. PARKER, JR. and TONIA R. PARKER
Defendant:
ROY COOPER, R. EDWARDS, MICHAEL EASLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gantt v. Easley et al
as 5:2007ct03012
Plaintiff:
George W. Gantt
Defendant:
Michael F. Easley, Buck Lattimore, Bernadine S. Ballance and others
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.
