Cases 1 - 10 of 14
CONAWAY v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
as 1:2023cv00102
Petitioner:
JOHN LEE CONAWAY
Respondent:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Wiles v. Grossman et al
as 1:2021cv00774
Petitioner:
STEVEN A. GROSSMAN, BLACK & BOONE, P.A. and Lucas T. Baker
Respondent:
JOHN LEE WILES
WILES v. GROSSMAN et al
as 1:2021mc00033
Petitioner:
STEVEN A. GROSSMAN, BLACK & BOONE, P.A. and Lucas T. Baker
Respondent:
JOHN LEE WILES
WILES v. GROSSMAN et al
as 1:2021cv00084
Plaintiff:
JOHN LEE WILES
Defendant:
STEVEN A. GROSSMAN and BLACK & BOONE, P.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BURNS v. DANIELS
as 1:2016cv01017
Petitioner:
JOHN LEE BURNS
Respondent:
FAYE DANIELS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Boyd v. USA
as 5:2014cv00242
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
John Lee Boyd, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
JOHN THE METHODIST AS REV. JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR. v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NC et al
as 1:2012cv01359
Plaintiff:
JOHN THE METHODIST AS REV. JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR.
Defendant:
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2012hc02291
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 4248 Civil Commitment of a Sexually Dangerous Person
MORRIS v. THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, et al
as 1:2010cv00130
Plaintiff:
JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR.
Defendant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUDGES, ATTORNEYS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Liberty Corporate Capital, Ltd
as 1:2009cv00765
Plaintiff:
Liberty Corporate Capital, Ltd
Defendant:
DELTA PI CHAPTER LAMBDA CHI ALPHA, JOHN FARRELL CASSADY, CHARLES KENNETH CALDWELL and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)
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.
