Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Reeves v. State of Tennessee et al
as 1:2021cv01143
Plaintiff:
Octaivian Demetrius Reeves
Defendant:
State of Tennessee, Al Earls, Judge Roger Page and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sweat v. Lutrell et al
as 1:2020cv01091
Defendant:
Eric M. Lutrell and George Morton Googe
Plaintiff:
Mark Anthony Sweat
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Gregory Goff v. Jeremy Epperson, et al
as 20-5392
Defendant / Appellee:
GEORGE MORTON GOOGE and JEREMY B. EPPERSON
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GREGORY ARNEZ GOFF
Goff v. Emerson et al
as 1:2020cv01061
Defendant:
Jeremy B. Epperson and George Morton Googe
Plaintiff:
Gregory Arnez Goff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv00447
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Donnie Morton v. Frank Perry
as 15-7754
Petitioner - Appellant:
DONNIE GEORGE MORTON
Respondent - Appellee:
FRANK L. PERRY
MORTON v. PERRY
as 1:2015cv00319
Petitioner:
DONNIE GEORGE MORTON
Respondent:
FRANK L. PERRY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Earl Hickson, Sr. v. Marina Associates, et al
as 11-8029
Petitioner:
EARL D. HICKSON, SR.
Respondent:
MARINA ASSOCIATES, d/b/a Harrah's Casino Hotel Atlantic City i/s/h/a Harrah's Hotel and Casino a/k/a Harrah's Atlantic City, ALEXANDER LOVAS, Security Shift Manager, STATE OF NJ DIV OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT and others
Earl Hickson v. Harrah's Hotel and Casino, et al
as 10-4607
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: EARL D. HICKSON
Defendant - Respondent:
HARRAHS CASINO HOTEL ATLANTIC CITY, ALEXANDER LOVAS, Security Shift Manager a/k/a ALEXANDER, STATE OF NJ DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT, Director of NJ D.G.E. and others
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
NOEL L. HILLMAN
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv03765
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
