Cases 1 - 10 of 46
Howell v. State of Mississippi et al
as 1:2024cv00057
Plaintiff:
April Mae Howell
Defendant:
State of Mississippi, Delbert Hosemann, Secretary of State Michael Watson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Lewis v. City of Tupelo et al
as 1:2023cv00031
Plaintiff:
Willie Lewis
Defendant:
City of Tupelo, Dustin Tutor, Sam Bell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights
Kilcrease v. City of Tupelo, Mississippi et al
as 1:2020cv00131
Defendant:
Britteny Williams, John/Jane Does and City of Tupelo, Mississippi
Plaintiff:
Christin Kilcrease
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Mansell v. City of Tupelo Police Department et al
as 1:2020cv00005
Defendant:
John Does 1-10, Chamila Brown and City of Tupelo Police Department
Plaintiff:
Lara M. Mansell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv00003
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
City of Tupelo, Mississippi v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Coropration et al
as 1:2019op45491
Defendant:
NORAMCO, INC.;, McKesson Corporation, WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., n/k/a Actavis, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
City of Tupelo, Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Filing Error
as 1:2019cv01381
Defendant:
NORAMCO, INC.;, McKesson Corporation, WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., n/k/a Actavis, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
City of Tupelo, Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv00062
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 18-60593
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00018
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
