Cases 1 - 10 of 10
United States v. Christopher Chappell
as 22-2503
Plaintiff / Appellee:
United States of America
Defendant / Appellant:
Christopher Chappell
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00671
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Armed Forces Relief and Benefit Association v. Chappell et al
as 6:2021cv01404
Plaintiff:
Armed Forces Relief and Benefit Association
Defendant:
Mary Chappell, Sherryl Chappell, Jennifer Crawford and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Armed Forces Relief and Benefit Association v. Chappell et al
as 6:2021cv01091
Defendant:
Jennifer Crawford, Christopher Chappell, Mary Chappell and others
Plaintiff:
Armed Forces Relief and Benefit Association
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Green v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.
as 17-1672
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Priscilla M. Green
Defendant - Appellee:
Avis Budget Group, Inc., Christopher Neudorf, Christopher Chappell and others
Chappell v. Daniels et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2016cv00071
Plaintiff:
Christopher Chappell
Defendant:
Leeposey Daniels, Luther Strange and Robert J. Bentley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
In re: Christopher Chappell
as 16-10058
Petitioner:
In re: CHRISTOPHER CHAPPELL
Successive Habeas Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Chappell v. Daniels et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2015cv00907
Plaintiff:
Christopher Chappell
Defendant:
Leeposey Daniels and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Chappell v. Daniels et al (INMATE 3)
as 2:2015cv00303
Plaintiff:
Christopher Chappell
Defendant:
Leeposey Daniels and Luther Strange
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Green v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2011cv00269
Plaintiff:
Priscilla M. Green
Defendant:
Avis Budget Group, Inc. , joe Donnelly , Christopher Neudorf and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
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.
