Cases 41 - 49 of 49
US v. Shawn Jone
as 10-4253
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
SHAWN DWAYNE JONES
Respondent - None:
NED POLK and INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY
Ned v. 3M Business Products Sales, Inc. et al
as 4:2010cv03269
Defendant:
3M Business Products Sales, Inc., Bayer CropScience, Inc., Pfizer, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Sheila Ned
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Asbestos Litigation
Kevin Smith v. Jon E. Ozmint
as 09-7540
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Royal Blackness, a/k/a Bar None
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT E. WARD, JAMES E. SLIGH, JR., JOHN LUNDEN and others
Defendant - None:
AEDEC INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, JOHN DOE, ESTHER QUATTLEBAUM and others
Kevin Smith v. Jonathan Ozmint
as 09-6680
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEVIN SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
JONATHAN E. OZMINT, ROBERT E. WARD, JAMES E. SLIGH, JR. and others
Defendant - None:
ESTHER QUATTLEBAUM, DUNLAP, J. C. BROWN and others
Jones v. Stiles
as 3:2008cv00379
Plaintiff:
Michael Jones
Defendant:
Ned Stiles
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Kevin Smith v. Jon Ozmint
as 08-6865
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Royal Blackness, a/k/a Bar None
Defendant - Appellee:
JON OZMINT, ROBERT E. WARD, JAMES E. SLIGH, JR. and others
Defendant - None:
ESTHER QUATTLEBAUM, DENNIS DUNLAP, J. C. BROWN and others
Johnson v. Mangum et al
as 5:2008ct03018
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Johnson, Jr.
Defendant:
Ned Mangum and L. Lee Carlton, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. Quattlebaum et al
as 0:2007cv03644
Plaintiff:
Kevin Smith
Defendant:
Esther Quattlebaum, Jon E Ozmint, Robert E Ward and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2007cv00255
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
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.
