Cases 71 - 80 of 1,013
Bramblett v. Scoular Company, The
as 5:2023cv04030
Plaintiff:
William Bramblett
Defendant:
Scoular Company, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract
Anderson v. Brakmic et al
as 5:2023cv04026
Plaintiff:
William Anderson
Defendant:
Demal Brakmic and On Time Transport, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (
McGinn (ID 62252) v. Williams
as 5:2023cv03095
Petitioner:
Carlon D. McGinn
Respondent:
Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nichols v. Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company
as 2:2023cv02126
Plaintiff:
Floyd William Nichols, Jr.
Defendant:
Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Dudley (ID 91359) v. Kansas Department of Corrections et al
as 5:2023cv03074
Plaintiff:
James Richard Dudley
Defendant:
Kansas Department of Corrections, Jeff Zmuda, Darcie Holthaus and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Martin v. Bellendir et al
as 5:2023cv03063
Plaintiff:
Clayton J. Martin
Defendant:
Brian Bellendir, Barton County Jail, Doug Parks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McDonald (ID 113183) v. Williams
as 5:2023cv03054
Plaintiff:
Sean E. McDonald
Defendant:
Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ruhl v. Williams
as 5:2023cv03053
Petitioner:
Tyler A. Ruhl
Respondent:
Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brinkley (ID 60164) v. Kansas, State of
as 5:2023cv03047
Petitioner:
Sherrell Gary Brinkley
Respondent:
Kansas, State of and Tommy Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Johnson v. Cramer et al
as 2:2023cv02057
Plaintiff:
William Arthur Johnson
Defendant:
Daniel W. Cramer and Hazen Farm
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
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.
