Cases 11 - 20 of 35
DAVIS v. FLOYD COUNTY OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES et al
as 4:2019cv00086
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL C. DAVIS
Defendant:
FLOYD COUNTY OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES and CHRISTA J. PRATHER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. NEW ALBANY INDIANA et al
as 4:2019cv00076
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL C. DAVIS
Defendant:
NEW ALBANY INDIANA and WALMART SUPERCENTER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. NEW ALBANY, INDIANA POLICE DEPT et al
as 4:2019cv00078
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL C. DAVIS
Defendant:
C. SHULTZ, B. KORTE and NEW ALBANY, INDIANA POLICE DEPT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. LOOP et al
as 4:2019cv00077
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL C. DAVIS
Defendant:
FRANK LOOP and FURMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. COOK INCORPORATED et al
as 1:2019cv01524
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL LEON DAVIS, JR.
Defendant:
COOK INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL LLC and WILLIAM COOK EUROPE APS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Davis v. Cox
as 4:2018cv04107
Plaintiff:
Michael A Davis
Defendant:
P Cox
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 268 et al v. Elk Heating & Cooling, Inc. et al
as 3:2016cv00274
Plaintiff:
Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 268 , Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers International Association Local 268 Amended Pension Trust , Jonathan Mentz and others
Defendant:
Elk Heating & Cooling, Inc. and Robert McPherson
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Davis v. Superintendent
as 2:2014cv00034
Petitioner:
Michael James Davis
Respondent:
Superintendent
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv03631
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Davis v. The People of the State of Indiana
as 2:2013cv00066
Petitioner:
Michael James Davis
Respondent:
State of Indiana The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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.
