Cases 1 - 10 of 28
KING v. ESTOCK et al
as 2:2022cv00708
Petitioner:
JEROME KING
Respondent:
LEE ESTOCK, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
King et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al
as 3:2021cv00579
Plaintiff:
Jerome King, Barry Devall, Bruce Naquin and others
Defendant:
Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Company of Baton Rouge, LLC
KING v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv33934
Plaintiff:
JEROME KING
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
KING v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv21412
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
JEROME KING
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Isaac King v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
as 19-30569
Respondent / Appellee:
DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY
Petitioner / Appellant:
ISAAC JEROME KING
King v. The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc.
as 6:2019cv01233
Defendant:
The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc., The Pep Boys-Manny and Moe & Jack, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Steven Jerome King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Isaac King v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
as 19-30198
Respondent / Appellee:
DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY
Petitioner / Appellant:
ISAAC JEROME KING
King v. Vannoy
as 1:2018cv01259
Defendant:
Darrel Vannoy
Plaintiff:
Isaac Jerome King
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
KING v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al
as 2:2018cv00039
Plaintiff:
Michael Jerome King
Defendant:
State of Georgia, HADLEY H MANN, ROBERT LANE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KING v. STATE OF GEORGIA et al
as 1:2018cv00006
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JEROME KING
Defendant:
STATE OF GEORGIA, JOHN AND OR JANE DOE and JOHN AND OR JANE DOES
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.
