Cases 1 - 10 of 35
Michael Reynolds v. David Herndon
as 19-2961
Respondent:
DAVID R. HERNDON
Petitioner:
MICHAEL C. REYNOLDS
Phyllis Schalfly's American Ea, et al v. David Herndon
as 18-1632
Petitioner:
PHYLLIS SCHALFLY'S AMERICAN EAGLES, a Virginia Not for Profit Corporation and EAGLE TRUST FUND
Respondent:
DAVID R. HERNDON
Party-in-Interest:
ANNE SCHLAFLY CORI, derivativley on behalf of nominal defendant Eagle Forum, EUNIE SMITH, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Eagle Forum, CATHIE ADAMS, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Eagle Forum and others
Mays v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2017cv00290
Plaintiff:
Paul Mays
Defendant:
Kentucky Department of Corrections, Webb Strange, Cordant Health Solutions and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mays v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al
as 0:2017cv00048
Plaintiff:
Paul Mays
Defendant:
Kentucky Department of Corrections, Webb Strange, Cordant Health Solutions and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shane Kitterman v. David Herndon
as 17-1572
Petitioner:
SHANE A. KITTERMAN
Respondent:
DAVID R. HERNDON
Party-in-Interest:
JEFF DENNISON, Warden
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv01897
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Charles M. Everett v. David R. Herndon
as 16-2871
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHARLES M. EVERETT
Defendant - Appellee:
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge
Charles R. Robinson, IV v. David R. Herndon
as 16-2309
Petitioner:
CHARLES R. ROBINSON, IV
Respondent:
DAVID R. HERNDON
Party-in-Interest:
JAMES N. CROSS, Warden
Charlie Eastland v. David Herndon
as 16-1904
Petitioner:
CHARLIE EASTLAND
Respondent:
DAVID R. HERNDON
Michael Oliver v. David Herndon, et al
as 16-1508
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL OLIVER, also known as KING MICHAEL OLIVER
Respondent - Appellee:
DAVID R. HERNDON, Judge, TIMOTHY TINY, Public Defender, SERGEANT SCOTT 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.
