Cases 51 - 59 of 59
Nathan Paul Reuter v. Tana S. Cutcliff, et al
as 10-6043
Debtor:
In re: Nathan Paul Reuter
Debtor - Appellant:
Nathan Paul Reuter
Movant - Appellee:
Tana S. Cutcliff, James A. Fields, James D. Fields and others
Fields v. Crews
as 7:2010cv00038
Petitioner:
James Lee Fields
Respondent:
Cookie Crews
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davidson et al v.Express Services,Inc. et al
as 1:2010cv00013
Plaintiff:
Willie Mae Davidson, Mary A. Avant, Helen E. Barr and others
Defendant:
Express Services, Inc., Triangle Staffing, LLC, Express Employment Professionals and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Speedee Worldwide Corporation v Field
as 2:2009cv07432
Defendant:
James L. Field
Plaintiff:
Speedee Worldwide Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Fields v. Thaler
as 4:2009cv03582
Petitioner:
James Curtis Fields
Respondent:
Rick Thaler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al
as 3:2009cv00396
Plaintiff:
Union Pacific Railroad Company
Defendant:
Louisiana Public Service Commission, Eric Skrmetta, in his capacity as Commissioner of LPSC, James M Field and others
Cause Of Action: Cause code unknown
Field v. State Attorney Office
as 2:2009cv00153
Plaintiff:
James H. Field
Defendant:
State Attorney Office
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Lawrence Wilder, Sr. v. Steve Preston
as 09-1161
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR.
Defendant - Appellee:
STEVE PRESTON, Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, JOHN BRAVACOS, Regional Director and JAMES KELLY, Field Office Director
James R. Fields v. E.D. Bullard Co., et al.
as PAE/2:08-CV-62717
Defendant:
E.D. Bullard Co
Plaintiff:
James R. Fields
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.
