Cases 51 - 60 of 62
Mamon v. LeBlanc et al
as 3:2011cv00048
Defendant:
James LeBlanc, Howard Prince and James Rogers
Plaintiff:
Annie Mamon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Johnson et al v. Ergon Trucking, Inc. et al
as 3:2010cv00094
Plaintiff:
Dennis Johnson , Floyd Williams , James Rogers and others
Defendant:
Ergon Trucking, Inc. and John Does 1-20
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Rogers et al v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
as 3:2009cv00102
Plaintiff:
James Rogers, James Rogers, Brenda Rogers and others
Defendant:
Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Johnson et al v. Ergon Trucking, Inc. et al
as 5:2009cv00145
Plaintiff:
Dennis Johnson, Floyd Williams and James Rogers
Defendant:
Ergon Trucking, Inc. and John Does 1-20
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Company et al
as 3:2009cv00217
Defendant:
Cooper Tire and Rubber Company and Ford Motor Company
Plaintiff:
James Roger Dowdall and James Roger Dowdall
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Rogers v. Humphreys County, Mississippi et al
as 4:2009cv00037
Plaintiff:
Christopher James Rogers
Defendant:
Humphreys County, Mississippi, Humphreys County Sheriff Department, Wayne Holloway and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Rogers v. Astrue
as 1:2009cv00207
Plaintiff:
James Rogers
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Burnes v. Rogers
as 08-30900
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOHNNIE BURNES
Respondent - Appellee:
JAMES ROGERS, WARDEN, C PAUL PHELPS CORRECTIONAL CENTER
Rogers v. Quarterman
as 3:2008cv01159
Petitioner:
Jason James Rogers
Respondent:
Nathaniel Quarterman
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Banks v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 4:2007cv04145
Plaintiff:
James Roger Banks
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C. R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
