Cases 51 - 60 of 68
BELL et al v. PARKER et al
as 5:2014cv00360
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER BELL and EDDIE HOUGH, SR
Defendant:
DANIEL PARKER and CRYSTAL REESE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: Daniel Parker
as 14-13380
Petitioner:
In re: DANIEL PARKER
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
Daniel Parker v. Secretary, FL DOC, et al
as 13-15566
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL PARKER
Respondent - Appellee:
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
Parker v. Castagna
as 7:2013cv07305
Plaintiff:
Daniel Parker
Defendant:
Carl Castagna
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. Montana Board of Pardons and Parole et al
as 1:2013cv00127
Plaintiff:
Desirae Danielle Parker
Defendant:
Montana Board of Pardons and Parole and Mike McKee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Parker v. Crews et al
as 0:2013cv61390
Plaintiff:
Daniel Parker
Defendant:
Michael D. Crews and Attorney General of Florida
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv00666
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Fishberg et al v. D.R. Horton Incorporated et al
as 2:2013cv00240
Plaintiff:
Gary Fishberg , Robin Fishberg , Basil Allen and others
Defendant:
D.R. Horton Incorporated , Continental Homes Incorporated and Unknown Parties
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract
Parker et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2013dp20064
Plaintiff:
Gerald Parker and Danielle Parker
Defendant:
DePuy Inc. , DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , DePuy International, Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
USA v. Charley Parker
as 12-30085
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
CHARLEY DANIEL PARKER
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.
