Cases 21 - 28 of 28
Drew Dyas, et al v. City of Fairhope, et al
as 11-11678
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CHARLES L. DYAS, JR., ARTHUR C. DYAS, PAMELA D. VAUTIER and others
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF FAIRHOPE and TIMOTHY M. KANT
Charles Dyas, Jr., et al v. City of Fairhope, et al
as 11-11545
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES L. DYAS, JR., ARTHUR C. DYAS, PAMELA D. VAUTIER and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF FAIRHOPE and TIMOTHY M. KANT
Bethel et al v. Baldwin County Department of Human Resources et al
as 1:2010cv00614
Plaintiff:
Orlando Bethel and Glynis Bethel
Defendant:
Baldwin County Department of Human Resources, Bob Riley, State of Alabama and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
City of Fairhope v. The Guarantee Company of North America, USA et al
as 1:2010cv00367
Plaintiff:
City of Fairhope
Defendant:
The Guarantee Company of North America, USA and Gadcon, Inc.
Counter_claimant:
The Guarantee Company of North America, USA
Counter_defendant:
City of Fairhope
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Murray Lawrence v. City Of Fairhope, Alabama, et al
as 10-11959
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MURRAY G. LAWRENCE
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF FAIRHOPE, ALABAMA and WENDELL THOMAS
Lawrence v. City of Fairhope, Alabama et al
as 1:2009cv00050
Plaintiff:
Murray G. Lawrence
Defendant:
City of Fairhope, Alabama and Wendell Thomas
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Dyas et al v. City of Fairhope et al
as 1:2008cv00232
Plaintiff:
Charles L. Dyas, Jr., Charles L. Dyas, Jr., Arthur C. Dyas and others
Defendant:
City of Fairhope and Timothy M. Kant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Koch Gtwy Pipel Co v. FERC
as 97-1024
Petitioner:
Koch Gateway Pipeline Company
Respondent:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Intervenor:
Utilities Board, of the City of Atmore, Alabama, Utilities Board, of the City of Bay Minette, Alabama, Town of Bay Springs, Mississippi and others
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.
