Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Richardson v. Limestone County Sheriff's Office
as 6:2024cv00214
Plaintiff:
Emily Richardson
Defendant:
Limestone County Sheriff's Office
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robert Smith v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
as 1:2024cv00079
Plaintiff:
Robert Smith
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, Fashion Canvas Painting Store, Futures Store and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Richardson v. Louisiana-1 Gaming et al
as 2:2022cv03241
Plaintiff:
Emily Richardson
Defendant:
Louisian-I Gaming, Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. doing business as Boomtown Casino and Resort New Orleans and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
David Denninger v. Public Defender Ceylone Copes, et al
as 15-11146
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID FORREST DENNINGER
Defendant - Appellee:
PUBLIC DEFENDER CEYLONE COPES, JEFF BALLEW, EMILY RICHARDSON and others
Edwin Jonas, III v. Emilie Richardson, et al
as 14-35282
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWIN RITTER JONAS, III, Esquire
Defendant - Appellee:
EMILIE RICHARDSON, BRYCE GRAY and HAGADONE MONTANA PUBLISHING LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, DBA Lake County Leader
DENNINGER v. COPES et al
as 1:2014cv00468
Plaintiff:
DAVID FORREST DENNINGER
Defendant:
CEYLONE COPES, Jeff Ballew, EMILY RICHARDSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DENNINGER v. COPES et al
as 1:2014cv00022
Plaintiff:
DAVID FORREST DENNINGER
Defendant:
CEYLONE COPES, JEFF BALLEW, EMILY RICHARDSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jonas v. Lake County Leader et al
as 9:2013cv00030
Plaintiff:
Edwin Ritter Jonas, III
Defendant:
Lake County Leader, Emilie Richardson and Bryce Gray
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
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.
