Cases 21 - 30 of 34
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2011cv03103
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Arlook v. NTN-Bower Corporation
as 5:2011cv01774
Plaintiff:
Martin M Arlook
Defendant:
NTN-Bower Corporation
Movant:
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, International
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 160
Bowers v. Accor North America, Inc.
as 2:2011cv01426
Plaintiff:
Michael Bowers
Defendant:
Accor North America, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Morris v. Town of Lexington, Alabama et al
as 3:2011cv01106
Plaintiff:
Jerry Morris
Defendant:
Town of Lexington, Alabama , Town of Anderson, Alabama , Mark Bowers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bower et al v. Pfizer Inc et al
as 2:2011cv00604
Plaintiff:
Alan Bower , Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel and Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel
Defendant:
Pfizer Inc, Defendant's Liaison Counsel and Defendant's Lead Counsel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bowers v. Price et al
as 5:2011cv00530
Petitioner:
Reginald Bowers
Respondent:
Sheryl Price and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Slaughter v. Reynolds et al
as 2:2010cv00340
Plaintiff:
Perry Slaughter
Defendant:
Sibley G. Reynolds and Robert Bowers, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv01172
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Bowers v. Jones et al
as 2:2009cv01133
Petitioner:
Otis Lee Bowers
Respondent:
Kenneth Jones and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blackburn v. Bowers (INMATE1)
as 2:2009cv00463
Plaintiff:
W. Mason Blackburn
Defendant:
Robert L. Bowers, Jr.
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.
