Cases 41 - 49 of 49
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2011cv00092
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
JAMES v. FEALLY et al
as 1:2010cv00619
Plaintiff:
JAMES JOSEPH JAMES
Defendant:
JIM FEALLY, ERGA, GOODMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LIPSCOMB v. HATLEY, et al
as 1:2010cv00450
Plaintiff:
STEVIE LIPSCOMB
Defendant:
DON HATLEY, DARREN WOODS, BILL GRIFFITH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Griffith v. Harkleroad
as 5:2010hc02048
Petitioner:
Joseph Michael Griffith
Respondent:
Sidney Harkleroad
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Griffith v. Harkleroad
as 3:2010cv00131
Petitioner:
Joseph Michael Griffith
Respondent:
Sidney Harkleroad
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Griffiths v. Miner et al
as 5:2010hc02024
Petitioner:
Chester Griffiths
Respondent:
Jonathan C. Miner, Eric Holder and Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Griffith v. Harkleroad
as 1:2010cv00026
Petitioner:
Joseph Michael Griffith
Respondent:
Sidney Harkleroad
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Griffith et al v. Aqua-Chem, Inc. et al
as 1:2008cv00433
Plaintiff:
Kenneth L. Griffith and Sandy C. Griffith
Defendant:
Aqua-Chem, Inc., Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., CertainTeed Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Griffith v. Lodge No. 1859 of District Lodge 110 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL, CIO
as 2:2007cv00026
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey James Griffith and Jeffrey James Griffith
Defendant:
Lodge No. 1859 of District Lodge 110 of the international Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL, CIO and AHNTECH, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)
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.
