Cases 31 - 40 of 44
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv00388
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112
MORRIS v. THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, et al
as 1:2010cv00130
Plaintiff:
JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR.
Defendant:
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, JUDGES, ATTORNEYS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MORRIS v. ASTRUE
as 1:2009cv00679
Plaintiff:
DALE L. MORRIS
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Interested Party:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
CLARK FARM, INC. v. THOMAS D. MORRIS, INC.
as 1:2009cv00465
Plaintiff:
CLARK FARM, INC.
Defendant:
THOMAS D. MORRIS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Breach of Contract
JACOB-CAMPBELL, et al v. JAMES LEE MORRIS, et al
as 1:2009cv00213
Defendant:
JAMES LEE MORRIS and ST. MICHAEL MOTOR EXPRESS, INC.
Plaintiff:
VERONICA V. JACOB-CAMPBELL and JAY CAMPBELL
Cause Of Action: Diversity
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALL RIGHTS OF HILDA MORRIS PURSUANT TO A DEED OF TRUST NOTE AND REAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE WITH HOPKINS, LLC
as 1:2008cv00422
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ALL RIGHTS OF HILDA MORRIS PURSUANT TO A DEED OF TRUST NOTE AND REAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE WITH HOPKINS, LLC
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Plaintiff
MORRIS v. ASTRUE
as 1:2008cv00307
Plaintiff:
RITA K MORRIS
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
MCQUAIG v. HATHAWAY
as 1:2008cv00232
Petitioner:
WILLIAM MORRIS MCQUAIG
Respondent:
ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
MORRIS v. N.C. SUPREME COURT et al
as 1:2008cv00098
Plaintiff:
JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR.
Defendant:
N.C. SUPREME COURT and U.S. SUPREME COURT
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
MORRIS v. HENNON & PROPERTIES, LLC
as 1:2007cv00780
Plaintiff:
MELVIN E. MORRIS
Defendant:
HENNON & BROWN PROPERTIES, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
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.
