Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Cato v. Bridges
as 4:2023cv00387
Petitioner:
Timothy Shawn Cato
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Grant v. Jackson et al
as 4:2020cv00424
Defendant:
David B Lee, Michael L Herrington, Leroy Jackson and others
Plaintiff:
Joseph Grant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cato v. Freeman et al
as 4:2019cv00594
Defendant:
Ciera Freeman and Brian Boeheim
Plaintiff:
Spencer Thomas Cato
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cato v. Hargrove et al
as 4:2019cv00087
Defendant:
Skylar Hargrove, J T Snoddy and Brownell
Plaintiff:
Spencer Thomas Cato
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Huddleston v. John Christner Trucking, LLC
as 4:2017cv00549
Plaintiff:
Thomas Huddleston, Ryan Cooper, James Murphy and others
Defendant:
John Christner Trucking, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Cato v. USA
as 4:2017cv00069
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Tony D'Marco Cato
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Cato v. Bristow Rubber Recycling, LLC et al
as 4:2010cv00011
Plaintiff:
Donald Cato
Defendant:
Bristow Rubber Recycling, LLC and Continental Conveyor (Ontario) Ltd.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Cato v. Bristow Rubber Recycling, LLC
as 4:2009cv00012
Plaintiff:
Donald Cato
Defendant:
Bristow Rubber Recycling, LLC and Continental Conveyor (Ontario) LTD
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2007cv00179
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Palmer v. Sequoyah County Board of County Commissioners et al
as 6:2007cv00012
Plaintiff:
Dennis Palmer
Defendant:
Sequoyah County Board of County Commissioners, Sequoyah County Board of County Commissioners, Johnny Philpot and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
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.
