Cases 1 - 10 of 496
Alford RobinsonIn re: Alford Robinson
as 24-5390
Petitioner:
In re: ALFORD D. ROBINSON
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Chavis v. Stump et al
as 7:2024cv00256
Plaintiff:
Jason Chavis
Defendant:
K-9 Officer Stump, J.A. Murray, Alfed Yates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. Scottsdale Insurance Company
as 2:2024cv00328
Plaintiff:
Sylvia D. Robinson
Defendant:
Scottsdale Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Charles Robinson v. Latoya Hughes, et al
as 24-1519
Plaintiff:
CHARLES MOHAMED ROBINSON, also known as Charles D. Robinson
Defendant:
LATOYA HUGHES, DISTRICT ONE PAROLE RE-ENTRY GROUP DEPUTY CHIEF, DISTRICT ONE PAROLE RE-ENTRY GROUP SUPERVISOR and others
Williams v. City of Raleigh et al
as 5:2024cv00173
Plaintiff:
Sonya Felecia Williams
Defendant:
City of Raleigh, Estella Patterson, Christopher D Robinson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
Robinson v. Bean
as 2:2024cv00436
Plaintiff:
Keith D. Robinson
Defendant:
Jeremy Bean
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kirk Robinson v. Taggart Boyd, et al
as 24-1392
Petitioner:
Kirk D. Robinson
Respondent:
Taggart Boyd, Warden of RTC and Rob Jeffreys, Director of Corrections, Nebraska
Sheffield v. Doe #1 et al
as 3:2024cv00093
Plaintiff:
Andre L. Sheffield
Defendant:
John Doe #1, Patrick Williams, Robinson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robinson v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America
as 6:2024cv00194
Plaintiff:
Patricia D. Robinson
Defendant:
UNUM Life Insurance Company of America
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Kirk Robinson v. Taggart Boyd, et al
as 24-1033
Petitioner:
Kirk D. Robinson
Respondent:
Taggart Boyd, Warden of RTC and Rob Jeffreys, Director of Corrections, Nebraska
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.
