Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Coleman v. Miles et al
as 1:2023cv00246
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Coleman
Defendant:
Charles Ray Miles, C.J. Transportation, Inc., Cidney M. Ordoyne and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Yarbrough v. Lauderdale County Circuit Court
as 3:2022cv00720
Plaintiff:
Charles Ray Yarbrough
Defendant:
Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Crawford v. Hall et al
as 3:2017cv00105
Petitioner:
Charles Ray Crawford
Respondent:
Pelicia Hall and Earnest Lee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Almore et al v. John M. O'Quinn & Associates, PLLC et al
as 2:2016cv00046
Plaintiff:
James Allen Almore , Solomon Sylvester Barger , Douglas E. Beasley, Sr. and others
Defendant:
John M. O'Quinn & Associates, PLLC , John M. O'Quinn & Associates, L.L.P. , John M. O'Quinn, P.C. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Warren v. Management & Training Corp. et al
as 3:2014cv00236
Plaintiff:
Charles Ray Warren
Defendant:
Management & Training Corp., Unknown Buscher, Unknown Rice and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Griffin v. Parks et al
as 1:2012cv00257
Plaintiff:
Charles Ray Griffin
Defendant:
Timogen Richard Parks , Parks Livestock & Fencing, Inc. and John Does 1-4
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Crawford v. Epps et al
as 4:2012cv00038
Plaintiff:
Charles Ray Crawford
Defendant:
Christopher Epps, E. L. Sparkman, Earnest Lee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barnes et al v. Coachmen Industries, Inc. et al
as 1:2009cv00448
Plaintiff:
Allison Shree Barnes, Thomas Lewis Barnes, Clarence Beamon and others
Defendant:
Coachmen Industries, Inc., Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Company, LLC, Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Company of Georgia, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
