Cases 81 - 90 of 114
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv01974
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Murphy et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2013cv26187
Plaintiff:
Tena A. Murphy and Mark Murphy
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. , Ethicon, LLC and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Sharp v. Correct Care Solutions et al
as 3:2013cv00056
Plaintiff:
Mark D. Sharp
Defendant:
Correct Care Solutions, Mark Murphy and G. Abbassi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Murphy v. USA
as 5:2013cv00032
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Mark Murphy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv01137
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Whittington v. Murphy et al
as 2:2012cv00419
Plaintiff:
Edward Roosevelt Whittington
Defendant:
Mark Murphy, Maggie Miller-Stout and Jay Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RICHARDS et al v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE et al
as PAE/2:12-cv-01623
Plaintiff:
JOHN GOLDEN RICHARDS , ADAM DUHE , FRANCES DUHE and others
Defendant:
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL PROPERTIES LLC and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE
RICHARDS et al v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE et al
as 2:2012cv01623
Plaintiff:
JOHN GOLDEN RICHARDS , ADAM DUHE , FRANCES DUHE and others
Defendant:
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL PROPERTIES LLC and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
US v. Mark Murphy
as 12-4051
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
MARK MURPHY, a/k/a Carlos Sentrell Murphy, a/k/a Mark Murphy, Jr.
Murphy, Brian et al v. Murphy, Mark et al
as 3:2012cv00005
Plaintiff:
Brian Murphy , John Murphy and City Wide Insulation of Madison
Defendant:
Mark Murphy, Jean Murphy and Colleen Martine
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
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.
