Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Gilreath-Johnson v. Potter et al
as 3:2024cv00037
Plaintiff:
Jamie Gilreath-Johnson
Defendant:
Corey Potter, Kyle Potter, Alaska Tendering Hiring Company and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Gilreath-Johnson v. Potter et al
as 3:2024cv00009
Plaintiff:
Austin Gilreath-Johnson
Defendant:
Corey Potter and The F/V Knot, Official Number 270361, Her Engines, Machinery, Appurtenances and Cargo, in Rem
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Albee v. Potter et al
as 3:2024cv00010
Plaintiff:
Justin Albee
Defendant:
Corey Potter, THE F/V KNOT E Z, Official Number 270361 and THE F/V GAMBLER, Official Number __
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Heckert v. Potter et al
as 3:2023cv00270
Plaintiff:
Jake Heckert
Defendant:
Corey Potter and THE F/V GAMBLER, OFFICIAL NUMBER ___
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Martinsen v. Potter et al
as 3:2023cv00143
Plaintiff:
Marc Martinsen
Defendant:
Corey Potter and The F/V Knot E Z
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 1101 Violation of Maritime Regulations
Gordon v. Potter et al
as 3:2023cv00010
Plaintiff:
John Gordon
Defendant:
Corey Potter and F/V Gambler
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 688 Jones Act
Borman v. Potter et al
as 3:2023cv00011
Plaintiff:
John Borman
Defendant:
Corey Potter, Knot E Z LLC and F/V The Knot E Z
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 688 Jones Act
Clarke v. Cox et al
as 1:2022cv00076
Plaintiff:
William Carol Clarke
Defendant:
Corey Cox, David Unknown and Front Street Clinic
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Clarke v. Hochul et al
as 1:2022cv00029
Plaintiff:
William Carol Clarke
Defendant:
Kathy Hochul, Letita James and Corey Booker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Rancourt et al v. Bolger et al
as 3:2021cv00189
Plaintiff:
Loren Rancourt and S. R.
Defendant:
Joel Bolger, Michael Shaffer, Cameron Compton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
