Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Maples
as 2:2026cv02430
Plaintiff:
Nikko Maples
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Maples v. Ng
as 2:2026cv02431
Plaintiff:
Nikko Maples
Defendant:
Benjamin Wang Kit Ng
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
GRAVES v. MAPLES et al
as 4:2026cv00186
Plaintiff:
BEYONCA GRAVES
Defendant:
SCOTT MAPLES, THOMAS, OLFTLEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gladden v. hilburn et al
as 5:2026ct03212
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Donte Gladden
Defendant:
richie D. hilburn, Scottie Sealey and Shannon E. Maples
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mud Maple Technologies LLC v. DHF Technology Pty Ltd et al
as 6:2026cv01498
Plaintiff:
MUD MAPLE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Defendant:
DHF Technology Pty Ltd an Australian proprietary limited company doing business as Rig Mate and James Rapley
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Reed v. Lucas et al
as 1:2026cv08066
Plaintiff:
Pamela R Reed
Defendant:
Maple Lucas and Deb Hindin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv00176
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
JEWELL v. MAPLES, JR. et al
as 4:2026cv00174
Plaintiff:
BREANNA JEWELL
Defendant:
SCOTT A. MAPLES, JR., CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CLARK COUNTY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2026cv00166
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Jones v. Maples et al
as 3:2026cv02146
Unknown:
Allen W. Fowler LLC, Andrew Wesley Creighton and Alan Easley
Plaintiff:
Livingston Jones, III
Defendant:
Bradley Scott Maples d/b/a Hawk Logistics and Circle A Xpress LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (
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.
