Cases 71 - 80 of 727
Goss v. United States of America
as 7:2023cv00368
Plaintiff:
Kevin Goss
Defendant:
United States of America
Interested Party:
Torts Branch USDOJ
Kampka v. State of North Carolina
as 1:2023cv00078
Petitioner:
Kevin Kampka
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00039
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disability Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2023cv00040
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disability Act
Jordan v. Pomeroy et al
as 5:2023ct03061
Plaintiff:
Malcolm A. Jordan
Defendant:
Katherine Pomeroy and Kevin Hubard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sapp v. Hendrick BMW Charlotte et al
as 3:2023cv00145
Plaintiff:
Alton Sharan Sapp
Defendant:
Hendrick BMW Charlotte, Land Rover Charlotte, Hendricks Automotive Group and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel, Assault, Slander
Randall et al v. Metzger
as 1:2023cv00043
Defendant:
K. D. Bryson, William Randall, Kevin David Bryson and others
Plaintiff:
Chad Metzger
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
Kampka v. State of North Carolina
as 5:2023hc02043
Petitioner:
Kevin Kampka
Respondent:
State of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00041
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Intervenor:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Truong v. Truist Financial Corporation
as 3:2023cv00079
Plaintiff:
Kevin Truong
Defendant:
Truist Financial Corporation
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
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.
