Cases 1 - 10 of 143
Parks v. United States of America et al
as 1:2024cv00005
Plaintiff:
Carlton B Parks
Defendant:
United States of America, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Travis R. McDonough and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Shelley v. Davidson County Criminal Courts et al
as 3:2023cv01296
Plaintiff:
Carlton J. Shelley
Defendant:
Davidson County Criminal Courts and Davidson County Sheriff's Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Carlton et al v. Exactech, Inc. et al
as 3:2023cv00212
Plaintiff:
Peggy Carlton and Clay Carlton
Defendant:
Exactech, Inc., Exactech U.S., Inc., TPG, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Speer et al v. UCOR LLC
as 3:2022cv00426
Plaintiff:
Carlton Speer, Malena Dennis and Zachariah Duncan
Defendant:
UCOR LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Smith v. United States
as 3:2022cv00273
Petitioner:
Carlton Victor Smith
Respondent:
United States
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Speer et al v. UCOR LLC
as 3:2021cv00368
Plaintiff:
Carlton Speer, Malena Dennis and Zachariah Duncan
Defendant:
UCOR LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Tart v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv00215
Plaintiff:
Lisa Tate Tart, Lisa Tart and Carlton John Tart
Defendant:
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, LLC and John Does 1-100 Inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Carlton v. Chapman
as 3:2021cv00075
Petitioner:
Anton Carlton
Respondent:
Arvil Chapman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Sawyer v. Miller et al
as 2:2020cv00264
Defendant:
Kilgore, Ken Miller, James Mosley and others
Plaintiff:
Larry T Sawyer
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2020cv00755
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
