Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Moses Langford v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, et al
as 20-13126
Defendant / Appellee:
ERIKA CLARKE BIRG, PETER L. MUNK, MAGNOLIA ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MOSES LANGFORD
Langford v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv05141
Defendant:
Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Erika Clarke Birg and others
Plaintiff:
Moses Langford
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Langford v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc. et al
as 1:2019cv04327
Defendant:
Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Erika Clarke Birg and others
Plaintiff:
Moses Langford
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Michael Mondy v. J. P. Boulee, et al
as 19-12474
Defendant / Appellee:
J. P. BOULEE, Individual and Official Capacity, PETER L. MUNK, MAGNOLIA ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL OLIVER MONDY
Highway Markings, Inc. v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc.
as 5:2019cv00071
Plaintiff:
Highway Markings, Inc.
Defendant:
Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc.
Mondy v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc.
as 1:2018cv04989
Plaintiff:
Michael O. Mondy
Defendant:
J. P. Boulee, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-11100
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Magnolia Advanced Materails, Inc. v. Epoplex
as 1:2015cv03121
Plaintiff:
Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc.
Defendant:
Epoplex
Movant:
Moses Langford
Magnolia Advanced Materails, Inc. v. Epoplex
as 1:2015mi00075
Plaintiff:
Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc.
Defendant:
Epoplex
Movant:
Moses Langford
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv01115
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
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.
