Cases 21 - 30 of 66
In re: Curtis Nelson
as 19-11763
Not Yet Classified:
ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA
Petitioner:
In re: CURTIS EDWARD NELSON
Nelson v. Dunn et al
as 2:2018cv01025
Defendant:
Jeff Dunn, David E Gay, Jr, Terry T. Jones and others
Plaintiff:
Curtis Edward Nelson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nelson v. Dunn et al
as 4:2018cv00837
Petitioner:
Curtis Edward Nelson
Respondent:
Jeff Dunn, Ruth Naglich, MHM Correctional Services Inc and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 2
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nelson v. Bolling et al
as 2:2018cv00838
Petitioner:
Curtis Edward Nelson
Respondent:
Leon Bolling and Attorney General for the State of Alabama
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 1
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nelson v. Dunn et al
as 2:2018cv00565
Plaintiff:
Curtis Edward Nelson
Defendant:
Jeff Dunn, Ruth Naglich, MHM Correctional Services Inc and others
Miscellaneou:
staff attorney 3
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nelson v. Fox et al
as 2:2017cv02117
Plaintiff:
Dyke Edward Nelson
Defendant:
Robert Fox and N. Strickland
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Center for Endoscopic Spine Surgery, LLC v. Whatabrands LLC, et al
as 4:2017cv00212
Defendant:
Whatabrands LLC, Whataburger Employee Benefit Plan, Whataburger Restaurants LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Center for Endoscopic Spine Surgery, LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
NELSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv02420
Petitioner:
EDWARD NELSON
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
National Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. MacKoul et al
as 8:2016cv00753
Petitioner:
National Fire & Marine Insurance Company
Respondent:
Paul Joseph MacKoul, The Center for Innovative GYN Care, PC, Innovations Surgery Center, PC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Nelson v. Williams et al
as 5:2016cv00028
Plaintiff:
Scott Edward Nelson
Defendant:
C. Williams, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Parke-Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
