Cases 61 - 70 of 2,609
Arendall v. Granville County et al ***DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE. See case 5:24-CT-3035-BO.***
as 5:2024cv00070
Plaintiff:
Jeannie Arendall
Defendant:
Granville County, Robert David Fountain, Johnny Evans and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Eads v. Rich
as 5:2024hc02031
Petitioner:
Christopher J. Eads
Respondent:
Warden David Rich
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
GOINS v. O'MALLEY
as 1:2024cv00054
Plaintiff:
DAVID GOINS
Defendant:
MARTIN O'MALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402 Social Security Benefits
Dixon v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2024hc02014
Petitioner:
David Keandre Dixon
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024hc02016
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 4241 Motion to Determine Mental Competency/Other Dist.
SELLERS v. SHOWERS et al
as 1:2024cv00026
Plaintiff:
BRIAN ELLIOTT SELLERS
Defendant:
DAVID ALLEN SHOWERS and MAUST TRUCKING INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Dunston v. Rich
as 5:2024hc02009
Petitioner:
Equan Cornelius Dunston
Respondent:
David Rich
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
MOORE v. CASSIDY
as 1:2024cv00021
Petitioner:
ANDREW SCOTT MOORE
Respondent:
DAVID CASSIDY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
England v. Oniya et al
as 5:2024ct03006
Plaintiff:
Jonathan David England
Defendant:
O. Oniya, D. Windley, J. Osborne and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LM Insurance Corporation v. David Simonini Custom Home, Inc.
as 3:2024cv00006
Plaintiff:
LM Insurance Corporation
Defendant:
David Simonini Custom Home, Inc., David Simonini Custom Homes LLC, David Simonini Custom Homes NC, LLC and others
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.
