Cases 1 - 10 of 14
WETHINGTON v. DAVIS
as 4:2023cv00201
Petitioner:
LINDSAY WETHINGTON
Respondent:
JAN DAVIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FUGATE v. DAVIS
as 1:2023cv02066
Petitioner:
KAYSIE FUGATE
Respondent:
JAN DAVIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
PURSIFULL v. DAVIS et al
as 1:2023cv00024
Plaintiff:
ROBIN LOUANN PURISFULL and ROBIN LOUANN PURSIFULL
Defendant:
JAN DAVIS, DEREK CHRISTIAN, JACK HENDRIX and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
JACOB v. DAVIS
as 4:2020cv00165
Respondent:
JAN DAVIS
Petitioner:
KATHLEEN JACOB
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nagel v. 425 Park South Tower Corp. et al
as 1:2019cv00112
Defendant:
Jose "Perez", Legal/Compliance Manager Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Company of Bruce Fyfe and others
Plaintiff:
Marcus Nagel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WHITTED v. KONKLE et al
as 4:2017cv00241
Defendant:
JAN DAVIS and CODY R. KONKLE
Plaintiff:
MOLLY R. WHITTED
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Arturo Prado v. Cindy Huggins, et al
as 16-50223
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ARTURO PRADO
Defendant - Appellee:
CINDY HUGGINS, CSR No. #2739, the official Court Reporter for the 216th Judicial District Court for Gillespie County, Texas, CLAY STEADMAN, Attorney at Law, MICHELLE L. HENRICKS, Director, Court Reporters Certification Board, in her official and individual capacities and others
Prado v. Huggins et al
as 1:2015cv00943
Defendant:
Stephen Ables, Velma Arellano, Donna Collins and others
Plaintiff:
Arturo Prado
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Deperio v. First Federal Bank of California, et al
as 3:2009cv00731
Plaintiff:
Edward P. Deperio, Jorly P. Rapada, Allan R. Camba and others
Defendant:
First Federal Bank of California, Firstfed Financial Corp., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
