Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Caswell County, North Carolina et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 3:2022cv07038
Plaintiff:
Caswell County, North Carolina et al, CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
CASWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA et al v. MCKINSEY AND COMPANY, INC.
as 1:2022cv00904
Plaintiff:
CASWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, DAVIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 6400 ROCKY TOP DRIVE, ROUGEMONT, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON et al
as 1:2014cv00073
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
6400 ROCKY TOP DRIVE, ROUGEMONT, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, 1973 CHEVROLET CAMARO, VIN 1S87T3N167528 and CURRENCY, $89,942.00 IN U.S.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 0981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 5015 GOVERNOR MARTIN ROAD, EFLAND, CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON et al
as 1:2013cv00752
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
5015 GOVERNOR MARTIN ROAD, EFLAND, CEDAR GROVE TOWNSHIP, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, 10228 OLD LIBERTY ROAD, LIBERTY, LIBERTY TOWNSHIP, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, 4599 GILMORE ROAD, LIBERTY, LIBERTY TOWNSHIP, RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON and others
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 801 SHANNON DRIVE, CHAPEL HILL, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON
as 1:2012cv00676
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
801 SHANNON DRIVE, CHAPEL HILL, ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881
Davis v. Doyle et al
as 4:2011cv00018
Defendant:
Danille Doyle, Wake County North Carolina Cary Police Detective Michele Savage, Orange County North Carolina Nancey Berson and others
Plaintiff:
William Scott Davis, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. 1968 CHEVROLET CAMARO DRAG CAR, VIN 124378N308008 et al
as 1:2010cv00854
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
1968 CHEVROLET CAMARO DRAG CAR, VIN 124378N308008, 1990 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS DRAG CAR, NO VIN, 26' CAR HAULER/TRAILER, VIN 4FPW53639TG013768 and others
Cause Of Action: 21 U.S.C. § 881
Bennie Mack, Jr. v. James Woodall, Jr.
as 10-6779
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BENNIE A. MACK, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES R. WOODALL, JR., In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as District Attorney for the 15 B Prosecutorial District of North Carolina, ANAND P. RAMASWAMY, In his individual capacity and in his former official capacity as Assistant District Attorney for the 15B Prosecutorial District of North Carolina, ROY COOPER, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as North Carolina Attorney General and others
Defendant:
BRENDA HOWARD, In her individual capacity and JAMES NEWKIRK
Bennie Mack, Jr. v. Carl R. Fox
as 09-6078
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BENNIE A. MACK, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
CARL FOX, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Resident Superior Court Judge for the 15B Judicial District of North Carolina, JAMES WOODALL, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as District Attorney for the 15B Prosecutorial District of North Carolina, KENNETH C. TITUS, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Superior Court Judge with the State of North Carolina and others
MACK v. FOX et al
as 1:2007cv00760
Plaintiff:
BENNIE AUSTIN MACK, JR.
Defendant:
CARL R. FOX, JAMES WOODALL, KENNETH C. TITUS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
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.
