Cases 1 - 10 of 134
ROSS v. WOODCOCK et al
as 1:2024cv00110
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
JUDGE WOODCOCK, ANDREW MCCORMACK, SCOTT KELLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROSS et al v. BANGOR SAVINGS BANK et al
as 1:2024cv00021
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS and BRIENNA ROWE
Defendant:
BANGOR SAVINGS BANK, TRESTEN BERGERON and GABRIELLE CAMPBELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROSS v. MCCORMACK et al
as 1:2024cv00015
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
ANDREW MCCORMACK, MJ MCFADDEN, SCOTT KELLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROSS v. WOODCOCK et al
as 1:2024cv00013
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
JUDGE WOODCOCK, MCCORMACK, BRYCE TURGENSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROSS v. MCCORMACK et al
as 1:2024cv00014
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
ANDREW MCCORMACK, BRYCE TURGENSON, SCOTT LEE ROSS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROSS v. PIKE et al
as 1:2024cv00016
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LEE ROSS
Defendant:
PIKE, D GRAY, JAQUES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NISBET v. ELLIS et al
as 1:2023cv00430
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA R NISBET and JOSHUA LIBBY
Defendant:
ROB ELLIS, STEVE WEBSTER, CHRIS TODD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BUNKER et al v. SHADS ADVERTISING CO INC.
as 2:2023cv00307
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL BUNKER and KEVIN BUNKER
Defendant:
SHADS ADVERTISING CO INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
DURAND-MCDONNELL v. EDGECOMB et al
as 1:2023cv00279
Plaintiff:
ELI DURAND-MCDONNELL
Defendant:
KEVIN EDGECOMB and NATHAN FORMBY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
FRANCK v. LEWISTON VA CLINIC et al
as 2:2023cv00248
Plaintiff:
JOHN FRANCK
Defendant:
LEWISTON VA CLINIC, DOREEN HUNT, EDWARD STEELE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
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.
