Cases 11 - 20 of 21
USA v. Quinton Grove
as 20-5677
Defendant / Appellant:
QUINTON JAMES GROVE
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Grove v. USA
as 2:2019cv00173
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Quinton James Grove
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
GROVES et al v. WALMART STORES, INC.
as 3:2018cv13005
Defendant:
WALMART STORES, INC.
Plaintiff:
CYNTHIA GROVES and JAMES GROVES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Watts v. McDonald et al
as 3:2016cv00648
Plaintiff:
Mark Robert Watts
Defendant:
Robert E. McDonald, Thomas Wisnieski and James Groves
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Groves et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2013dp21430
Plaintiff:
Anthony James Groves and Victoria Groves
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , DePuy, Inc. , DePuy International Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Fow v. Pawlowski et al
as 1:2012cv01970
Plaintiff:
Christian D. Fow
Defendant:
Frank Pawlowski, Frank Noonan, George Bivens and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
E T C Tiger Pipeline L L C v. 80 Acres, More or Less, Located in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana et al
as 3:2010cv00580
Plaintiff:
E T C Tiger Pipeline L L C
Defendant:
80 Acres More or Less Located in DeSoto Parish Louisiana, Unknown Heirs of Emma Lou Madison, Unknown Heirs of Rosie Strother Daniels and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 717
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv03368
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv03190
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Groves v. Anderson Police Department, City of et al
as 8:2008cv03398
Plaintiff:
James Groves
Defendant:
Anderson Police Department, City of, Christopher Getsinger and John Doe
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.
