Cases 1 - 10 of 57
Michael Oliver v. John Richardson, et al
as 24-13688
Defendant:
NUNN, ARMSTRONG, POWE and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER
Michael Oliver v. Cam Ward, et al
as 24-12450
Defendant:
TANYA MORRIS, CAM WARD, DARRYL LITTLETON and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER
Oliver v. Ward et al (INMATE 4)

as 2:2024cv00298
Defendant:
Dwayne Spurlock, Angela Lawson, Leigh Gwanthney and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Darnell Oliver
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Oliver v. State of Alabama (INMATE 1)
as 2:2024cv00273
Plaintiff:
Michael Darnell Oliver
Defendant:
State of Alabama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
DOGWOOD STATE BANK v. MOUSSA-OLIVER et al

as 1:2023cv22539
Plaintiff:
DOGWOOD STATE BANK, a North Carolina state-chartered bank and DOGWOOD STATE BANK
Defendant:
MANAL MOUSSA-OLIVER, Michael Oliver, MANAL S. MOUSSA-OLIVER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Oliver v. McDonough

as 23-1828
Claimant:
MICHAEL B. OLIVER
Respondent / Appellee:
DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Oliver v. Oliver

as 3:2023cv00173
Plaintiff:
Joseph Earl Oliver
Defendant:
Michael Brandon Oliver
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2022cv02499
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Oliver v. Clark County Dentetion Center Medical

as 2:2022cv00739
Plaintiff:
Michael DeShawn Oliver, Ollie Norton and Michael Norton
Defendant:
Clark County Dentetion Center Medical
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
OLIVER v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2020cv11201
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL R OLIVER
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.