Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Love v. ESO Solutions, Inc.
as 1:2023cv01577
Plaintiff:
Billy Love
Defendant:
ESO Solutions, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Jones v. ESO Solutions, Inc.
as 1:2023cv01557
Plaintiff:
Essie Jones, Essie McVay, Larry Claybo and others
Defendant:
ESO Solutions, Inc., Robert Day, George Simpson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Micah Spence v. Billy Love, et al
as 16-1415
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Micah A. Spence
Defendant - Appellee:
Billy Love, RN, UAMS, Danny Campbell, Medical Staff, UAMS PRI, William Giggleman, Medical Staff, UAMS and others
Spence v. Alston et al
as 4:2014cv00314
Plaintiff:
Micah A Spence
Defendant:
Frederick N Alston, Joshua L Gardner, Tina Helmle and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Spence v. Love et al
as 4:2014cv00167
Plaintiff:
Micah A Spence
Defendant:
Billy Love, Danny Campbell, William Giggleman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Filing Error
as 3:2012cv01893
Plaintiff:
Billie Love
Defendant:
DePuy Inc, DePuy International Limited, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Love v. DePuy Inc et al
as 1:2012dp22023
Plaintiff:
Billie Love
Defendant:
DePuy Inc , DePuy International Limited , DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
DAWKINS v. USA
as 2:2011cv01543
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
BILLY LOVE DAWKINS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
USA v. Billy Love Dawkin
as 10-2350
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
BILLY LOVE DAWKINS, AKA Billy, Jr., AKA Little Billy, Jr., AKA Boss
McSwain et al v. Chesapeake Energy Cor et al
as 5:2009cv01969
Plaintiff:
Harold McSwain, Ann McSwain, Loma Chamberlin and others
Defendant:
Chesapeake Energy Corp, Chesapeake Exploration L L C and Chesapeake Operating Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
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.
