Cases 61 - 70 of 2,061
Mack v. Mayes (INMATE 3)
as 2:2024cv00042
Plaintiff:
Mardedues L Mack
Defendant:
E. Mayes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lancaster et al v. Concept Entertainment - Four, LLC
as 3:2024cv00194
Plaintiff:
Dessie Pilek, Amber Lancaster, Kimberly Cozzens and others
Defendant:
Concept Entertainment - Four, LLC doing business as Dixie Tavern
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
United States v. Mayes
as 24-3011
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
STACIE MAYES
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-10239
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
USA v. Clinton Mayes
as 24-5079
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
CLINTON LYON MAYES
Finley v. Neal et al
as 3:2024cv00074
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey L Finley
Defendant:
Ron Neal, Christina Reagle, Jacqueline Mayes and others
Not Yet Classified:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Stephanie Mayes v. Capital One, N.A.
as 5:2024cv00133
Plaintiff:
Stephanie Mayes
Defendant:
Capital One, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Griffin v. Neal et al
as 3:2024cv00066
Plaintiff:
LeeTravis Griffin
Defendant:
Ron Neal, Christina Reagle, Jacqueline Mayes and others
Not Yet Classified:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Eminger v. Neal et al
as 3:2024cv00062
Plaintiff:
Tyson Eminger and Tyson Andrew Eminger
Defendant:
Ron Neal, Christina Reagle, Jacqueline Mayes and others
Not Yet Classified:
INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Molina v. USA
as 3:2024cv00142
Petitioner:
Mayeli Molina
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
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.
