Cases 1 - 10 of 191
Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 2:2024cv00160
Plaintiff:
Joe Earl Smith
Defendant:
Director TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 3:2024cv00219
Petitioner:
Joe Earl Smith
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. NetSpend Corporation et al
as 2:2024cv00161
Plaintiff:
Prentis Earl Smith, II
Defendant:
NetSpend Corporation and Netspend Legal Dept
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Smith v. Wesley et al
as 4:2023cv01282
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Earl Smith, Sr.
Defendant:
Aaron J. Wesley and Sassy Trucking, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Smith v. Lumpkin
as 4:2023cv04299
Petitioner:
Thomas Earl Smith
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Smith v. United States of America
as 4:2023cv03024
Plaintiff:
Thomas Earl Smith
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
SMITH v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv23045
Plaintiff:
EARL SMITH
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
SMITH v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv15742
Plaintiff:
EARL SMITH
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 9:2023cv00121
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Director, TDCJ-CID
as 9:2023cv00134
Petitioner:
Thomas Earl Smith
Respondent:
Director, TDCJ-CID
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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.
