Cases 61 - 70 of 116
Mealy v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
as 2:2018cv02422
Defendant:
C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Plaintiff:
Lamont Mealy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Wilson v. Arizona, State of et al
as 2:2018cv01663
Plaintiff:
Joseph Lamont Wilson
Defendant:
Arizona, State of, Phoenix Police Department, Maricopa County Public Defender's Office and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bell v. Phoenix Police Department et al
as 2:2018cv00256
Plaintiff:
Terrance Lamont Bell
Defendant:
Hector Lugo, Mark Wibbing, Gary Bradley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McConico #218605 v. Ryan et al
as 2:2018cv00093
Petitioner:
Lamont McConico
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Terry v. Core Civic et al
as 2:2017cv04528
Plaintiff:
Derek Lamont Terry
Defendant:
Core Civic, Victoria Powell and Unknown Parties
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Tempe, City of
as 4:2017cv00582
Plaintiff:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Defendant:
Tempe, City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Arizona Department of Corrections et al
as 4:2017cv00508
Plaintiff:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Defendant:
Arizona Department of Corrections, Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Ryan et al
as 2:2017cv03680
Petitioner:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Johnson v. Ryan et al
as 2:2017cv03575
Petitioner:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Johnson v. Ryan et al
as 2:2017cv00609
Petitioner:
Maurice Lamont Johnson
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
