Cases 41 - 50 of 73
Holmes v. Moore et al
as 1:2014cv00084
Plaintiff:
Eugene T. Holmes
Defendant:
Tim Moore, Gregory S. McIntyre, David Teddy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gill v. Bausch & Lomb Supplemental
as 14-1058
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Daniel E. Gill, Thomas C. McDermott and Jay T. Holmes
Defendant - Appellant:
Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated and Compensation Committee of the Bausch & Lomb Board of Directors
USA v. Marlon Holmes
as 13-4829
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
MARLON T. HOLMES
Holmes v. Keen et al
as 3:2013cv01935
Petitioner:
Marlon T. Holmes
Respondent:
Daniel S. Keen and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Holmes v. Keen et al
as 3:2013cv01635
Plaintiff:
Marlon T. Holmes
Defendant:
Daniel S. Keen, Mike Morrow and Brian Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Leslie Holmes v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr
as 13-40486
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LESLIE T. HOLMES
Defendant - Appellee:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In Re: Asbestos Product
as 13-2000
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CATHRYN HOLME, Special Administrator for the Estate of Darrell T. Holme Sr
Defendant - Appellee:
AC & S INC, CHICAGO FIRE BRICK, CSR LTD and others
Holmes v. Keen et al
as 1:2013cv00964
Plaintiff:
Marlon T. Holmes
Defendant:
Daniel S. Keen, Mike Morrow, Brian Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00651
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Holmes v. McFadden et al
as 1:2012cv01769
Plaintiff:
Keenan T. Holmes
Defendant:
Robert E. McFadden, Paul Coppenhaver, D. Lorance and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
