Cases 11 - 20 of 78
Clarence Jenkins, Jr. v. South Carolina Department of Employment Workforce
as 21-2177
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CLARENCE B. JENKINS, JR.
Defendant / Appellee:
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT WORKFORCE, SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION, SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL and others
Farmer v. BOP Director et al
as 3:2021cv00147
Plaintiff:
Jeremiah S. Farmer
Defendant:
BOP Director, Regional, U.S.P. Hazelton Warden and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Brunson v. Stein et al
as 5:2021ct03063
Defendant:
Yolanda K. Stith, Emily M. Baucom, James C. Gillen and others
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Eugene Brunson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JENKINS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 8:2020cv80021
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
COLIIN B JENKINS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jenkins v. Erffe
as 20-1392
Petitioner / Appellant:
King B. Jenkins
Respondent / Appellee:
Erffe, Warden
Clarence Jenkins, Jr. v. SC Dept of Employment
as 19-2037
Defendant / Appellee:
SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT WORKFORCE
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CLARENCE B. JENKINS, JR.
Clarence Jenkins, Jr. v. US
as 19-1772
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CLARENCE B. JENKINS, JR.
Teter v. Hartness et al
as 2:2019cv04088
Defendant:
George Lombardi, Dave Dormire, B Jenkins and others
Plaintiff:
Randy Gene Teter, Jr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jenkins v. Erffe
as 3:2019cv00476
Respondent:
Erffe
Petitioner:
King B. Jenkins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Smith et al v. St. Paul Travelers Company, Inc. et al
as 2:2019cv01454
Defendant:
Lyons Exit Realty Inc., Counselor Kessel, Nurse Blackmon and others
Plaintiff:
Edmond Hudmond Smith, IV and Louis Holger
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
