Cases 11 - 20 of 20
Carl Blackmon v. Royce Pippin
as 13-15940
Petitioner - Appellant:
CARL LEE BLACKMON
Respondent - Appellee:
ROYCE A. PIPPIN
Carl Blackmon v. Secretary, FL DOC
as 13-11809
Petitioner - Appellant:
CARL LEE BLACKMON
Respondent - Appellee:
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Blackmon v. Anderson et al
as 3:2013cv00079
Plaintiff:
Eddie Lee Blackmon
Defendant:
Willie Anderson, Billy Patrick, Michael Holfild and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
BLACKMON v. CREWS
as 3:2013cv00003
Petitioner:
CARL LEE BLACKMON
Respondent:
MICHAEL D CREWS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blackmon v. Trinity Mission Health & Rehab of Clinton, LLC et al
as 3:2012cv00780
Plaintiff:
Percy Lee Blackmon
Defendant:
Trinity Mission Health & Rehab of Clinton, LLC and John and Jane Does 1 - 10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Carl Blackmon v. Warden, Okaloosa CI
as 11-13528
Petitioner - Appellant:
CARL LEE BLACKMON
Respondent - Appellee:
OKALOOSA CI WARDEN
BLACKMON et al v. A.C. AND S., INC, (ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY) et al
as 2:2009cv84420
Plaintiff:
ROY LEE BLACKMON and MARTHA BLACKMON
Defendant:
A.C. AND S., INC, (ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY), A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC., A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
BLACKMON v. PIPPIN
as 3:2008cv00510
Petitioner:
CARL LEE BLACKMON
Respondent:
BILL MCCULLOM and ROYCE A PIPPIN
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ABBOTT et al v. A.C. AND S., INC. (ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY) et al
as 2:2007cv66632
Plaintiff:
MYRTLE B. ABBOTT, JAMES CAR ABNER, JR., WILLY L. ADKINS and others
Defendant:
A.C. AND S., INC. (ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY), A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC., A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
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.
