Cases 1 - 10 of 10
THOMAS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv49121
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
EDGAR THOMAS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Thomas v. Crawford et al
as 5:2018cv00224
Plaintiff:
Johnathan Edgar Thomas
Defendant:
Jacob Crawford and Lexington Urban Fayette Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Thomas v. Crawford et al
as 3:2018cv00204
Plaintiff:
Johnathan Edgar Thomas
Defendant:
Jacob Crawford and Lexington Urban Fayette Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Edgar Thomas v. The State of South Carolina
as 17-1876
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDGAR THOMAS
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thomas v. South Carolina, The State of
as 3:2017cv01345
Defendant:
South Carolina, The State of
Plaintiff:
Edgar Thomas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rose v. USA
as 1:2014cv00085
Petitioner:
Edgar Thomas Rose, Jr.
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Lewis et al v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
as 2:2014cv07310
Plaintiff:
Beverly Lewis and Edgar Thomas
Defendant:
American Medical Systems, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MAACO FRANCHISING, INC. v. WALID HASSOUN NAAMAN et al
as 2:2010cv07410
Plaintiff:
MAACO FRANCHISING, INC.
Defendant:
WALID HASSOUN NAAMAN, ROGER D. NAAMAN and EDGAR THOMAS SMITH, JR.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1121
Clemmons v. Janes et al
as 1:2009cv02432
Plaintiff:
William Alonzo Clemmons
Defendant:
Nobie Geraldine Janes, Mary Estelle Thomas and Edgar Thomas, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Type:
Other Statutes
Clemmons v. Janes et al
as 1:2009mi00354
Plaintiff:
William Alonzo Clemmons
Defendant:
Nobie Geraldine Janes, Mary Estelle Thomas and Edgar Thomas, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Type:
Other Statutes
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.
