Cases 1 - 10 of 59
MATHEWS v. HUGE et al
as 3:2024cv00109
Plaintiff:
CARLTON XAVIER MATHEWS
Defendant:
HUGE, LUSK and J M LAMBERT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jacobson v. O'BRYANT et al
as 4:2024cv00003
Plaintiff:
David Otto Jacobson
Defendant:
WILLIAM O'BRYANT, Deputy Lusk, Deputy Chief Yates and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jacobson v. Johnson et al
as 4:2023cv01750
Plaintiff:
David Otto Jacobson
Defendant:
Cassandra Johnson, Joseph Michael Willoughby, Jonathan W Horton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LUSK v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv23544
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH LUSK
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Jacobson v. O'Bryant et al
as 4:2023cv01126
Plaintiff:
David Otto Jacobson
Defendant:
O'Bryant and Sgt. Lusk
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LUSK v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv13070
Plaintiff:
JOHN EDWARD LUSK and JOHN E LUSK, JR
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Lusk v. Barber et al
as 1:2022cv02798
Plaintiff:
Justice Robert Lusk
Defendant:
Officer Barber, Officer Alberto Calderon, Officer Phillips and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lusk v. Taylor
as 1:2022cv02574
Petitioner:
Justice Robert Lusk
Respondent:
Keybo Taylor
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
USA v. Joseph Lusk
as 22-12078
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JOSEPH FUREY LUSK
Lusk v. Barber et al
as 1:2022cv02315
Petitioner:
Justice Robert Lusk
Respondent:
Police Officer Barber, Police Officer Alberto Calderon, Police Officer Phillips and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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.
