Cases 11 - 20 of 24
In re: Blake Friday
as 18-11051
Petitioner:
In re: BLAKE EDWARD FRIDAY
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Humphers v. Peters et al
as 2:2017cv01178
Defendant:
Jason Bell, Jane Doe, John Doe 1 and others
Plaintiff:
Blake Edward Humphers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Daniel Edwards v. USA
as 17-5594
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL BLAKE EDWARDS
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEHARI v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al
as 1:2016cv01889
Plaintiff:
ALEHEGN MEHARI
Defendant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NICO ALFREDO SCOTT, BLAKE EDWARD JOHNSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USA v. Blake Childre
as 16-6410
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
BLAKE EDWARD CHILDRESS
Edwards v. USA
as 2:2016cv00137
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Daniel Blake Edwards
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Carter et al v. Cadence Bancorp LLC
as 2:2016cv00712
Plaintiff:
Blake Edward Carter and Corey Christopher Jones
Defendant:
Cadence Bancorp LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
John Doe and Jane Doe 1 through 20 et al v. State of Nebraska et al
as 8:2009cv00456
Defendant:
Millard Gustafson, State of Nebraska, Nebraska State Patrol and others
Plaintiff:
John Doe and Jane Doe 1 through 20, John Doe and Jane Doe A through K and John Doe and Jane Doe 1 through 36
Interested Party:
Senator Pete Pirsch, Dave Cookson, John Freudenberg and others
Intervenor:
John Doe 21-23
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Friday v. USA
as 2:2012cv00729
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Blake Edward Friday
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Flannery v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company et al
as 4:2012cv02136
Plaintiff:
Blake Edward Flannery
Defendant:
Shelter Mutual Insurance Company and Department of Health & Human Services
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
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.
