Cases 1 - 10 of 11
El v. Corporate State of South Carolina et al
as 2:2022cv00506
Plaintiff:
Shemu Nasi El
Defendant:
Corporate State of South Carolina, Clarendon County Government, Sheriff Dept and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Davis v. Wilkerson et al
as 3:2021cv00061
Defendant:
Shanae Knox, Joseph Godfrey, Samuel Vazquez and others
Plaintiff:
Andre Antonio Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Davis v. Velasco et al
as 3:2020cv00732
Defendant:
Shanae Knox, Samuel Vazquez, Beth Boggess and others
Plaintiff:
Andre Antonio Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Davis v. Murray et al
as 3:2020cv00677
Defendant:
Joseph Godfrey, Samuel Vazquez, Surindra J. Singh and others
Plaintiff:
Andre Antonio Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Donna Lancaster v. Board of Police Commissioners, et al
as 19-1702
Interested Party:
Compass Health, Inc.
Defendant / Appellee:
Shawn Todd, David Epperson and Board of Police Commissioners
Petitioner:
Division of Employment Security, State of Missouri
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Donna Lancaster
EPPERSON v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY et al
as 3:2018cv01736
Defendant:
OTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL INC, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD
Plaintiff:
DAVID EPPERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Donna Lancaster v. Board of Police Commissioners, et al
as 15-3769
Movant:
Division of Employment Security, State of Missouri
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Donna Lancaster
Defendant - Appellant:
Board of Police Commissioners, David Epperson and Shawn Todd
Interested Party:
Compass Health, Inc.
Lancaster v. Board of Police Commissioners et al
as 4:2014cv00171
Defendant:
Board of Police Commissioners , David Epperson and Shawn Todd
Plaintiff:
Donna Lancaster
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
EPPERSON v. 3M
as 2:2008cv68899
Plaintiff:
DAVID EPPERSON
Defendant:
3M and 3M
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
