Cases 51 - 60 of 161
Shavez HoldenIn re: Shavez Holden
as 19-2687
Not Yet Classified:
SGT. KOPCHICK, C.O. 2, S.C.I. Forest, In re: SHAWVEZ NELSON A/K/A SHAVEZ HOLDEN, ZACHARY J. MOSLAK, Chief Hearing Examiner and others
Smith v. I.A.T.S.E. Local 16 Pension Plan
as 4:2019cv03573
Plaintiff:
Kim Smith
Defendant:
I.A.T.S.E. Local 16 Pension Plan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
CARSON v WETZEL et al
as 1:2019cv00119
Defendant:
ANDREW LESLIE, KIM SMITH, DR. J.J.Z. HOLDREN and others
Plaintiff:
KENNETH A. CARSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Teresa Bloodman v. AR Supreme Court Committee, et al
as 19-1771
Defendant / Appellee:
R. Stark Ligon, Jr., Executive Director, Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, in his official capacity and individual capacity, Karolyn Jones, Member, Panel A, Committee on Professional Conduct, James Dunham, Chair, Committee on Professional Conduct and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Teresa Lynette Bloodman
Ernest Jenkins v. Kim Smith
as 19-1450
Respondent / Appellee:
KIM SMITH, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant:
ERNEST R. JENKINS
Williams v. Andreopoulos & Hill, LLC et al
as 2:2019cv10283
Defendant:
Kristina Brewart, Sally Kaye Rahn, Fernandez Dezes and others
Plaintiff:
Edward Williams
Cross Defendant:
Wendy Potts, Wendy M. Baxter and Leslie Kim Smith
Jay Hanks v. Kim Smith
as 19-1142
Petitioner / Appellant:
JAY A. HANKS
Respondent / Appellee:
KIM SMITH
Crenshaw v. Smith
as 3:2019cv03008
Undetermined:
Habeas Attorney General
Respondent:
Kim Smith
Petitioner:
Michael E Crenshaw
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WILLIAMS v. LEE et al
as 1:2018cv00362
Defendant:
BYRD, JOHN DOE 1-4, KIM SMITH and others
Plaintiff:
LA-QUN R. WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
STEVENS v. WINGER et al
as 1:2018cv00324
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, KIM SMITH, MICHAEL OVERMYER and others
Plaintiff:
MAURICE STEVENS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
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.
