Cases 1 - 10 of 31
KERR v. ROGERS, et al.
as 1:2023cv00929
Plaintiff:
ADAM GATES KERR
Defendant:
SHERIFF DANNY ROGERS, GUILFORD COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, OFFICER ATIF ABDELRAHMAN GAMAL and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death
RICE v. ROGERS
as 1:2022cv00335
Plaintiff:
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE
Defendant:
DANNY ROGERS, ARAMARK, INC., WELL PATH, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BURNETT v. BURNS et al
as 1:2022cv00181
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL P. BURNETT
Defendant:
B. BURNS and WINSTON SALEM POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MITCHELL v. DUDDY et al
as 1:2020cv00204
Defendant:
CAMBELL, HARRINGTON, PENNY DUDDY and others
Plaintiff:
JORDAN NATHANIEL MITCHELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CANNON et al v. AUTOMONEY, INC. et al
as 1:2019cv00877
Plaintiff:
JENNIFER TAYLOR, JULIA HARRISON, BRIAN BREVARD and others
Defendant:
AUTOMONEY, INC. and AUTOMONEY NORTH, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00793
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
RAYNOR et al v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL et al
as 1:2018cv00291
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM J. RAYNOR, JR. and KARA R. RAYNOR
Defendant:
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL , JOHN WOOD SWEET , KIMBERLY KYSER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MOHAMMAD v. BURNS
as 1:2017cv00602
Plaintiff:
BASIR RAZZAK MOHAMMAD
Defendant:
BURNS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BURNS v. DANIELS
as 1:2016cv01017
Petitioner:
JOHN LEE BURNS
Respondent:
FAYE DANIELS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BROADCAST MUSIC, INC. et al v. HIGH ROCK RESTAURANT VENTURES, INC. et al
as 1:2016cv00209
Plaintiff:
BROADCAST MUSIC, INC. , STONE DIAMOND MUSIC CORP. , SONY/ATV SONGS LLC and others
Defendant:
HIGH ROCK RESTAURANT VENTURES, INC., JACK T. PHILLIPS and TRADD BURN
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501
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.
