Cases 1 - 10 of 17
USA v. Wayne Nance, Jr.
as 23-3306
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
WAYNE R. NANCE, JR., also known as WAYNE R. EVANGELISTA
Evangelista, Wayne v. Crocker, Stephen et al
as 3:2023cv00802
Plaintiff:
Wayne Richard Evangelista and Wayne R. Nance, Jr.
Defendant:
Stephen L. Crocker, Kim V. Gaffney, Kalvin D. Barrett and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02004
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
In re: Brooke Crump, Attorney
as 22-2124
Petitioner / Appellant:
BROOKE M. CRUMP
Respondent / Appellee:
JOHN R. NANCE and NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR
Appellant:
In re: BROOKE CRUMP, Attorney
Jonathan Brunson v. Josh Stein
as 22-7228
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JONATHAN EUGENE BRUNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
JOSH STEIN, BARRY H. BLOCH, JESSICA B. HELMS and others
Brunson v. Stein et al
as 5:2021ct03063
Defendant:
Yolanda K. Stith, Emily M. Baucom, James C. Gillen and others
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Eugene Brunson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NANCE et al v. CITY OF ALBEMARLE, NORTH CAROLINA et al
as 1:2019cv00641
Plaintiff:
MRS. JENNIFER R. NANCE and MR. CHUCKY L. NANCE
Defendant:
CITY OF ALBEMARLE, NORTH CAROLINA, MAYOR RONNIE MICHAEL, DIRECTOR KEVIN ROBINSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nance v. Fort Wayne City of
as 1:2018cv00367
Plaintiff:
William R. Nance
Defendant:
City of Fort Wayne and Fort Wayne City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nance v. Berryhill
as 2:2017cv01004
Defendant:
Nancy A Berryhill
Plaintiff:
Mary R. Nance
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
McDonald v. Abizaid et al
as 1:2017cv00907
Defendant:
Thomas S. Gross, Bruce A. Carbonari, RPM International, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Charles McDonald
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
