Cases 21 - 30 of 31
Clayton v. Clarke, etc.
as 2:2011cv00372
Petitioner:
Joseph Anthony Clayton
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Clayton v. Jarvis
as 7:2011cv00296
Petitioner:
Joseph Anthony Clayton
Respondent:
Larry W. Jarvis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Clayton v. State of Mississippi
as 1:2010cv00103
Plaintiff:
James Anthony Clayton
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CLAYTON v. CHIDRENS CHOICE et al
as 2:2009cv05727
Plaintiff:
KIRT W. CLAYTON, BARBARA E. CLAYTON and MARC ANTHONY CLAYTON
Defendant:
CHIDRENS CHOICE, BILL EBERWEIN, KEVIN DOUGHERTY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Anthony Clayton Rudder v. Atty Gen USA
as 09-3925
Petitioner:
ANTHONY CLAYTON RUDDER
Respondent:
ATTY GEN USA
Marshall v. Ward
as 09-5082
Petitioner:
ANTHONY CLAYTON MARSHALL
Respondent:
RON WARD, Director, Director
KIRKPATRICK et al v. AQUA-CHEM INC et al
as 2:2008cv70860
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY CLAYTON KIRKPATRICK and ROBIN MARIE GROSS
Defendant:
AQUA-CHEM INC, BORG WARNER MORSE TEC INC, CERTAINTEED CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Kirkpatrick et al v. Aqua-Chem Inc et al
as 0:2008cv00057
Plaintiff:
Anthony Clayton Kirkpatrick and Robin Marie Gross
Defendant:
Aqua-Chem Inc, Borg Warner Morse TEC Inc, Certainteed Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Clayton v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
as 1:2007cv11068
Petitioner:
Anthony Clayton
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Clayton v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
as 1:2007cv02179
Plaintiff:
Anthony Clayton
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
