Cases 61 - 70 of 300
HOGAN v. DEAL et al
as 1:2018cv00131
Plaintiff:
RICKY LAMAR HOGAN
Defendant:
GOVERNOR NATHAN DEAL, STATE ATTORNEY GENER CHRISTOPHER CARR and COMMISSIONER GREGORY DOZIER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DAVIS v. SOUTHEAST GEORGIA PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE et al
as 7:2018cv00099
Plaintiff:
LIN E DAVIS
Defendant:
JAMES L GARLAND, SOUTHEAST GEORGIA PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, NATHAN DEAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clayton v. Hunt et al
as 6:2018cv00063
Plaintiff:
Earnest B. Clayton
Defendant:
FNU Hunt, FNU Derbez, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GRAY v OLENS et al
as 5:2018cv00209
Plaintiff:
NAPOLEON GRAY
Defendant:
SAMUEL OLENS, STATE OF GEORGIA and NATHAN DEAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Oliver v. County of Effingham et al
as 4:2018cv00120
Plaintiff:
Anthony Oliver
Defendant:
County of Effingham , Richard Rafter , Heather Wadrose and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris v. Gordon et al
as 6:2018cv00056
Plaintiff:
Tavares Douglas Harris
Defendant:
Darrel Gordon, Mikasa Cooper, William Summersett and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wimbush v. Deal et al
as 1:2018cv02085
Petitioner:
Therian Wimbush
Respondent:
Nathan Deal, Gregory C. Dozier, Willie Sue Mickens and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Oliver v. City of Pooler et al
as 4:2018cv00100
Plaintiff:
Anthony Oliver
Defendant:
City of Pooler , City of Savannah , City of Bloomingdale and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
York v. Carr et al
as 1:2018cv01726
Plaintiff:
Asma M. York
Defendant:
Christopher M. Carr, Office of the Attorney General, Nathan Deal and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Andrews et al v. Shulkin et al
as 1:2018cv01533
Plaintiff:
Bertha Andrews , Denorris Andrews and James Andrews
Defendant:
David J. Shulkin, John Nathan Deal and Karen C. Gainey ESQ.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
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.
