Cases 61 - 70 of 174
Palmer v. Faulkner County Detention Center et al
as 4:2018cv00363
Plaintiff:
Lloyd Emerson Earl Palmer, II
Defendant:
Faulkner County Detention Center, Tim Ryals, Charles E Clawson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Palmer v. Miller et al
as 4:2018cv00227
Plaintiff:
Lloyd Emerson Earl Palmer, II
Defendant:
Reidmueller, Faulkner County Code Enforcement, Classen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Palmer v. Miller et al
as 4:2018cv00171
Plaintiff:
Lloyd Emerson Earl Palmer
Defendant:
Reed Miller, Jerry Stewart, Faulkner County Detention Center and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barnette et al v. Express Courier International Inc et al
as 4:2018cv00004
Plaintiff:
Martin Barnette , David Barr , Lloyd Barrett and others
Defendant:
Express Courier International Inc and EMP LSO Holding Corporation
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Watkins et al v. Lawrence County, Arkansas et al
as 3:2017cv00272
Plaintiff:
Cleo Watkins , Pyles Family Farms LLC , Victor Hutcherson and others
Defendant:
Lawrence County, Arkansas, John Thomison, William Powell and others
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1365
Pierce v. Rorax et al
as 3:2017cv00268
Plaintiff:
Jason Lloyd Pierce
Defendant:
Steve Rorax, Becky Hitt and Susan Cox
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pierce v. Marshall et al
as 3:2017cv00242
Plaintiff:
Jason Lloyd Pierce
Defendant:
Patricia Marshall, Steve Rorex and Robert Curry
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamm v. Liggett et al
as 6:2017cv06089
Plaintiff:
Lloyd N. Hamm, Jr.
Defendant:
Charles Liggett and Dream M Redic-Young
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2017cv00527
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Matlock v. Boyd et al
as 4:2017cv00405
Plaintiff:
Glen Matlock
Defendant:
Lloyd Boyd and Fred's Stores of Tennessee Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
