Cases 41 - 50 of 127
Clayton Franklin v. Franklin County, Arkansas, et al
as 19-1854
Defendant:
Nicholas James, individually and in his capacity as a Franklin County Sheriff's Deputy, Anthony Boen, in his official capacity as Franklin County Sheriff, James Molton and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Nathan Griffith and Joseph Griffith
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Clayton Franklin, as Administrator for the Estate of Cody J. Franklin
Derrick Galvin v. R. Jones, et al
as 19-1673
Defendant / Appellee:
Willie Taylor, Corporal, Varner Unit/VSM, ADC, McDave, Corporal, Varner Unit/VSM, ADC, Robinson, Corporal, Varner Unit/VSM, ADC and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Derrick S. Galvin
George Aldridge, Jr. v. Lee Browning, et al
as 19-1044
Plaintiff / Appellant:
George Franklin Aldridge, Jr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Lee Browning and Corizon Health Services
Defendant:
Cynthia Reese and Nina Hill
Hafen et al v. Rust Rare Coin Inc. et al
as 4:2018mc00934
Defendant:
Aleesha Rust Franklin, Rust Rare Coin Inc., Denise Gunderson Rust and others
Plaintiff:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and State of Utah Division of Securities
Undetermined:
Jonathan O. Hafen
Hyde v. Franklin American Mortgage Company
as 4:2018cv04113
Plaintiff:
Brady Hyde
Defendant:
Franklin American Mortgage Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Nelson v. Jackley
as 4:2018cv04047
Plaintiff:
Franklin Sandoval Nelson
Defendant:
Martin Jacob Jackley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
United States v. Thomas Houck
as 17-3045
Plaintiff - Appellant:
United States of America
Defendant - Appellee:
Thomas Franklin Houck
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2017cv00744
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Hanford v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc.
as 4:2017cv02005
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Hanford
Defendant:
Franklin Collection Service, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
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.
