Cases 41 - 50 of 65
Automotive Finance Corporation v. Stoneglen Auto Group Inc et al
as 3:2013cv03262
Defendant:
Stoneglen Auto Group Inc and Glen Edward White, II
Plaintiff:
Automotive Finance Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Glen Edward Rogers v. State of California et al
as 2:2013cv02509
Respondent:
Los Angeles County and State of California
Petitioner:
Glen Edward Rogers
Byars v. Thaler
as 5:2013cv00189
Petitioner:
Glen Edward Byars, Jr.
Notice Only Party:
Laura Haney
Respondent:
Rick Thaler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Glen Chapman v. Dennis Rhoney
as 12-1758
Plaintiff - Appellee:
GLEN EDWARD CHAPMAN
Defendant - Appellant:
DENNIS ALVIN RHONEY, in his individual capacity and ROBERT A. MULLINAX, in his individual capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Mark Richardson Sams
Defendant:
CITY OF HICKORY
Albus et al v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. et al
as 2:2012cv01209
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Albus , Grace Reid , Lee Morris and others
Defendant:
Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., Bechtel National, Inc., CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Glen Mathews v. Warden
as 12-10366
Petitioner - Appellant:
GLEN EDWARD MATHEWS
Respondent - Appellee:
FCC COLEMAN - LOW WARDEN
Edwards v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
as 3:2011cv03137
Plaintiff:
Shannon Glen Edwards
Defendant:
Social Security Administration Commissioner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Rogers v. State Of Florida et al
as 8:2011cv02221
Petitioner:
Glen Edward Rogers
Respondent:
State Of Florida and State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Glen Edward Rutherford v. Gary Swarthout
as 5:2011cv01089
Petitioner:
Glen Edward Rutherford
Respondent:
Gary Swarthout
Chapman v. Rhoney et al
as 1:2010cv00258
Plaintiff:
Glen Edward Chapman
Defendant:
Dennis Alvin Rhoney, Robert A Mullinax and Hickory, City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
