Cases 11 - 20 of 26
Giummo et al v. Olsen et al
as 1:2015cv03928
Plaintiff:
Carolyn Giummo and Anthony S. Hill, Sr.
Defendant:
Robert Olsen, Lee May, The Board of Commissioners of the County of Dekalb and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCKISSICK v. DEAL et al
as 5:2015cv00407
Plaintiff:
RODERICK MCKISSICK
Defendant:
NATHAN DEAL, BRIAN OWENS, HOMER BRYSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. Lanier County Sheriff's Department et al
as 7:2015cv00043
Plaintiff:
DERRICK A WILLIAMS
Defendant:
LANIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CHARLES N NORTON, JOHN OLSEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company v. Olsen et al
as 1:2015cv00322
Plaintiff:
UniCare Life & Health Insurance Company
Defendant:
Mary C. Olsen, James P. Gunning and Camille E. Flanagan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335
STEVENS v. Brown et al
as 7:2014cv00095
Plaintiff:
CHARLIE J STEVENS
Defendant:
ROLAND BROWN, ROBERT DONOVAN, WENDY OLSEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Battle v. Olsen
as 1:2014cv00917
Plaintiff:
Terry Lee Battle
Defendant:
Samule S. Olsen
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Morris et al v. Macon/Bibb County City/County Consolidated Government et al
as 1:2014cv00892
Plaintiff:
Olsen Bernard Morris , J.C.P. , C.S.K. and others
Defendant:
Macon/Bibb County City/County Consolidated Government, Jerry Modena, LaKay Howard and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PUGH v. MURRAY et al
as 5:2014cv00091
Petitioner:
GERARD PUGH
Respondent:
ALBERT MURRAY, SAM OLSEN and PENNY FREESEMANN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dixon v. Sheppard et al
as 1:2013cv03289
Petitioner:
James Anthony Dixon
Respondent:
Stan Sheppard and Samuel Olsen
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
COTTON v. OLSEN
as 5:2013cv00208
Petitioner:
WILLIE COTTON
Respondent:
SAM OLSEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
