Cases 51 - 60 of 123
In re: Tom Roberts Construction Co. I, et al
as 14-12095
Petitioner:
In re: TOM ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. and THOMAS SCOTT ROBERTS, III
Mandamus Respondent:
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In re: Thomas Roberts
as 14-10998
Petitioner:
In re: THOMAS JAMES ROBERTS
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Roberts v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
as 3:2014cv00719
Plaintiff:
Thomas J Roberts
Defendant:
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tom Roberts Construction Co., Inc. et al
as 1:2013cv01566
Plaintiff:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Defendant:
Tom Roberts Construction Co., Inc. and Thomas Scott Roberts, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Roberts v. Thomas et al
as 3:2013cv01397
Petitioner:
Thomas James Roberts
Respondent:
Willie Thomas and The Attorney General of the State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reeves et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation
as ILS/3:13-cv-00675
Plaintiff:
Charles Reeves , Ruby Reeves , William B. Reeves and others
Defendant:
SmithKline Beecham Corporation
Reeves et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation
as 3:2013cv00675
Plaintiff:
Charles Reeves , Ruby Reeves , William B. Reeves and others
Defendant:
SmithKline Beecham Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
In re: Thomas Robert
as 13-12691
Petitioner:
In re: THOMAS JAMES ROBERTS
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 13-12558
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Roberts v. Thomas et al
as 3:2013cv01072
Petitioner:
Thomas James Roberts
Respondent:
Willie Thomas and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
