Cases 41 - 50 of 101
THOMAS v. ORTIZ
as 1:2018cv01602
Petitioner:
LAMAR C. THOMAS
Respondent:
DAVID ORTIZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
LAMAR v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. et al
as 1:2017cv13042
Plaintiff:
KIMBERELY LAMAR
Defendant:
DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
YOUNG v. EMBDEN et al
as 1:2017cv12046
Plaintiff:
JEROME LAMAR YOUNG
Defendant:
LAURAN VAN EMBDEN and RICHARD T. SMITH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DIGGS v. CITY OF WOODBURY et al
as 1:2017cv11994
Plaintiff:
LAMAR DIGGS
Defendant:
CITY OF WOODBURY, THOMAS R RYAN, MATTHEW PORTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
YOUNG v. WARDEN SMITH
as 1:2017cv11644
Petitioner:
JEROME LAMAR YOUNG
Respondent:
WARDEN SMITH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
LAMAR-DAVIS v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC. et al
as 3:2017cv10417
Plaintiff:
JUAICE LAMAR-DAVIS
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC. , JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. , IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Ellis v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al
as 2:2017cv06129
Plaintiff:
Lamar Ellis
Defendant:
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP and ASTRAZENECA LP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MAYS v. The Albert M. "Bo" Robinson Assessment & Treatment Center et al
as 3:2017cv04352
Defendant:
THE ALBERT "BO" ROBINSON ASSESSMENT & TREATMENT CENTER , THE COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER , LAMAR NORMAN and others
Plaintiff:
RYAN MAYS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
BATES v. TAYLOR et al
as 1:2017cv03641
Plaintiff:
PRESTON LAMAR BATES
Defendant:
ERIC TAYLOR, FRANK LOBERTO and JOSEPH RIPA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
YOUNG v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 1:2017cv03039
Petitioner:
JEROME LAMAR YOUNG
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY and WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
