Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024hc02016
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 4241 Motion to Determine Mental Competency/Other Dist.
Namely, Inc. v. People Center, Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv02777
Plaintiff:
Namely, Inc.
Defendant:
People Center, Inc. doing business as Rippling, Rippling PEO 1, Inc., Rippling PEO 2, Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rodriguez v. City of New York et al
as 1:2021cv01924
Plaintiff:
William Eric Rodriguez and Wildon Rodriguez
Defendant:
Michael F. Vecchione, Joseph Yates, City of New York and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Reeves v. Siddiq (INMATE 2)
as 2:2017cv00825
Plaintiff:
Richard Kyle Reeves
Defendant:
Tahir Siddiq
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Vista Outdoor Inc. v. Reeves Family Trust
as 17-1059
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant - Appellee:
Vista Outdoor Inc.
Defendant-Counter-Claimant - Appellant:
Reeves Family Trust, Michelle Wilkens, Jeremy Wilkens and others
Vista Outdoor Inc. v. Reeves Family Trust et al
as 1:2016cv05766
Plaintiff:
Vista Outdoor Inc.
Defendant:
Reeves Family Trust , Michelle Wilkens , Jeremy Wilkens and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Reeves v. Gaston et al (INMATE 1)
as 2:2016cv00181
Plaintiff:
Richard Kyle Reeves
Defendant:
Sgt. Gaston and Ms. Sparks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reeves v. Jackson (INMATE 2)
as 2:2015cv00835
Plaintiff:
Richard Kyle Reeves
Defendant:
D. Jackson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Reeves v. State of Alabama et al
as 4:2013cv01360
Petitioner:
Richard Kyle Reeves
Respondent:
State of Alabama and Attorney General of the State of Alabama, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Reeves v. Mason, et al (INMATE 2)
as 2:2013cv00370
Plaintiff:
Richard Kyle Reeves
Defendant:
Rene Mason, Tyrone Jenkins, L. White and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
