Cases 31 - 40 of 162
Randolph v. Saul
as 5:2020cv00094
Defendant:
Andrew M. Saul
Plaintiff:
Carolyn S. Randolph
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. State of North Carolina et al
as 3:2020cv00211
Defendant:
North Carolina State Board of Elections, Carol Hill Williams, Michael G. Dickerson and others
Plaintiff:
Judicial Watch, Inc.
Intervenor Defendant:
North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and League of Women Voters of North Carolina
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv00296
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 0794
Austin v. USA
as 3:2020cv00120
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Randolph Harris Austin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Pyatt et al
as 1:2020cv00038
Defendant:
Daniel Gregory Randolph, Mark Nicholas Pyatt and Winston Reed Investments L.L.C.
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 77
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Winston Reed Investments L.L.C. et al
as 1:2020cv00042
Defendant:
Mark N. Pyatt, Daniel Randolph and Winston Reed Investments L.L.C.
Plaintiff:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
THOMAS v. BRANNON et al
as 1:2020cv00017
Defendant:
OFFICER K. B. STEWART, MAGISTRATE H. D. BRANNON, RANDOLPH COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE and others
Plaintiff:
QUANTEZ THOMAS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
YORK v. WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK
as 1:2019cv01207
Plaintiff:
RANDOLPH YORK
Defendant:
WOODFOREST NATIONAL BANK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Mitchell v. Clay et al
as 5:2019ct03313
Plaintiff:
Justin Randolph Mitchell
Defendant:
Harvey Clay, Mary Locklear, Crystal Jackson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mitchell v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC et al
as 5:2019ct03304
Plaintiff:
Justin Randolph Mitchell
Defendant:
Dr. Alan Rhoades, Correct Care Solutions, LLC and Dr. Donald Rhodes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
