Cases 81 - 90 of 1,057
EDWARDS v. HOLCOMB et al
as 1:2022cv02377
Plaintiff:
ADRIAN EDWARDS
Defendant:
ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER JR., DAUSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
EDWARDS v. HOLCOMB et al
as 1:2022cv02357
Plaintiff:
ADRIAN EDWARDS
Defendant:
ERIC J. HOLCOMB, ROBERT E. CARTER, JR., DAUSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PURNELL v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2022cv02355
Petitioner:
EDWARD PURNELL
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 st Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SWEENEY v. WARDEN
as 3:2022cv00188
Petitioner:
CHARLES EDWARD SWEENEY, JR.
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clinton v. Edward Jones and Co, LP
as 3:2022cv00972
Plaintiff:
Kevin Clinton
Defendant:
Edward Jones and Co, LP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02236
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
SWEENEY v. MITCHELL
as 3:2022cv00178
Petitioner:
CHARLES EDWARD SWEENEY, JR.
Respondent:
DANNY MITCHELL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LAMOND II v. BERNSTEIN
as 4:2022cv00143
Plaintiff:
JOHN EDWARD LAMOND II
Defendant:
HOWARD N BERNSTEIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hampton v. Warden
as 3:2022cv00885
Petitioner:
Edward M Hampton and Edward Mitchell Hampton
Respondent:
Warden
Not Classified By Court:
MIAMI E-FILE(Court Use Only) and WESTVILLE E-FILE(Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
EDWARDS v. EDWARDS et al
as 1:2022cv02014
Plaintiff:
EDMUND EDWARDS
Defendant:
CHARRISE EDWARDS, KRISTA EDWARDS, LEE R. BOGDANOFF and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
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.
