Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Cunningham et al v. Steak & Shake Operations, Inc.
as 3:2015cv00668
Plaintiff:
Melissa Cunningham and Charlie Cunningham
Defendant:
Steak & Shake Operations, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
HOPSON v. BERRY et al
as 4:2013cv00045
Defendant:
BENNY BERRY, CHARLIE CUNNINGHAM, DENETRA GATES and others
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Hopson v. Cunningham et al
as 3:2013cv00226
Plaintiff:
DeAndre Hopson
Defendant:
Charlie Cunningham, CPS Louisville, Judge Gerber and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hopson v. Weinburg et al
as 3:2012cv00772
Plaintiff:
DeAndre Hopson
Defendant:
David Weinburg, Weinburg, Simpson, III and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Hopson v. Secret Service et al
as 3:2012cv00770
Plaintiff:
De'Andre Hopson
Defendant:
Secret Service, FBI, Adam Solinger and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Hopson v. Briesher et al
as 3:2012cv00729
Plaintiff:
Dendre Hopson
Defendant:
Steve Briesher, Ron Smith, Kentucky Attorney General and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hopson v. Shakes
as 3:2012cv00728
Plaintiff:
DeAndre Hopson
Defendant:
James Shakes, County Clerks Office, Frank McScagui and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hopson v. Shakes et al
as 3:2012cv00722
Plaintiff:
Deandre Hopson
Defendant:
James Shakes, Interchange Law Offices, Frank Mascagni and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hopson v. Kentucky Bar Association et al
as 3:2012cv00505
Plaintiff:
De'Andre Hopson
Defendant:
Kentucky Bar Association, Ahren Whaley, Scott Barton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
HOPSON v. ORAL SURGUREY AND MAXILLOFACIAL GROUP et al
as 4:2012cv00072
Defendant:
SAM AGUAIR, AUTO-SMART, MIKE BENNET and others
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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.
