Cases 61 - 70 of 71
HILL v. BOYLE et al
as 1:2012cv00164
Plaintiff:
DWIGHT HILL
Defendant:
TERRENCE W. BOYLE, JAMES C. FOXX and ROBERT B JONES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
SAEKU v. HOLDER et al
as 1:2012cv00146
Plaintiff:
SOMSAK SAEKU
Defendant:
ERIC HIMPTON HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, TERRENCE W. BOYLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones v. Watford-Mckinney et al
as 5:2011mc00057
Plaintiff:
Tony Lamont Jones
Defendant:
Yvonne V. Watford-Mckinney, Seth M. Wood, Matthew L. Fesak and others
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 5:2009hc02106
Petitioner:
David Lee Smith
Respondent:
United States of America and Terrence W. Boyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2009cv01358
Petitioner:
DAVID LEE SMITH
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and TERRENCE W. BOYLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 5:2008hc02184
Petitioner:
David Lee Smith
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Terrence W. Boyle
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Milton Lawrence v. US
as 08-8534
Petitioner - Appellant:
MILTON LEROY LAWRENCE
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and TERRENCE W. BOYLE, Judge
LAWRENCE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 5:2008hc02172
Petitioner:
Milton Leroy Lawrence
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Terrence W. Boyle
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
JAMES v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2008cv01912
Petitioner:
CLEVELAND M. JAMES
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and TERRENCE W. BOYLE
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
LAWRENCE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2008cv01848
Petitioner:
MILTON LEROY LAWRENCE
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and TERRENCE W. BOYLE
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
