Cases 71 - 80 of 123
Smith v. Gibson et al
as 5:2015cv00209
Plaintiff:
Danny Dewayne Smith
Defendant:
Kerry Gibson, Shaniqua Daniels and Akeem Blackshire
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. Gibson et al
as 6:2015cv01164
Plaintiff:
Danny Dewayne Smith
Defendant:
Kerry Gibson, Shaniqua Daniels and Akeem Blackshire
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
United States of America v. Smith
as 4:2015cv00023
Defendant:
Benjamin Dewayne Smith
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Cayton v. Allen et al
as 3:2015cv00297
Defendant:
Mike Allen , Ron Coleman and Dewayne Smith
Plaintiff:
Jeffery L Cayton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Estate of Allen Reuben, Deceased v. Hope4Cancer Institute LLC et al
as 3:2015cv02357
Plaintiff:
Estate of Allen Reuben, Deceased
Defendant:
Hope4Cancer Institute LLC, Antonio Jimenez and Dewayne Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330
Estate of Margaret Johnson Nichols v. Hope4Cancer Institute LLC et al
as 3:2015cv02358
Plaintiff:
Estate of Margaret Johnson Nichols
Defendant:
Hope4Cancer Institute LLC, Antonio Jimenez and Dewayne Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Smith et al v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U S A Inc et al
as 6:2015cv01382
Defendant:
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U S A Inc , Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc , Takeda Development Center Americas Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Sheila Smith and Dewayne Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv00673
Warden:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Smith v. Stephens
as 4:2015cv00707
Petitioner:
Demetrius Dewayne Smith
Respondent:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith v. Tilly et al
as 1:2015cv00388
Plaintiff:
Semaj Dewayne Smith
Defendant:
Tilly, Willard, J. Brione and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
