Cases 1 - 10 of 113
Lackie v. Dennis et al
as 4:2024cv00348
Plaintiff:
Richard Daniel Lackie
Defendant:
Dennis, John Putman and Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
MORELAND v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv14290
Plaintiff:
RICHARD DANIEL MORELAND
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
USA v. Richard Daniel
as 23-11495
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
RICHARD DANIEL
Moaney v. Lumpkin
as 23-50200
Petitioner / Appellant:
Richard Daniel Moaney
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Moaney v. Lumpkin
as 6:2023cv00072
Petitioner:
Richard Daniel Mooney, IV and Richard Daniel Moaney
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rushing v. Syngenta AG et al
as 3:2023pq00037
Special Master:
Randi Ellis
Plaintiff:
Richard Daniel Rushing
Defendant:
Syngenta AG and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Williams v. City of Richmond, et al.
as 3:2022cv00762
Plaintiff:
Tiara Williams
Defendant:
City of Richmond and Richard Daniel Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed Question-Violation of Constitutional Rights
Daniels et al v. Bank of America, N.A.
as 8:2022cv02616
Plaintiff:
Richard Daniels and Sports and Analyst Team, LLC
Defendant:
Bank of America, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal - Other Contract
Daniels v. Thompson L.S.C.I.
as 1:2022cv00850
Petitioner:
Richard Daniels
Respondent:
Warden R. Thompson L.S.C.I.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Lord v. MacDonald et al
as 3:2022cv00276
Plaintiff:
Richard Daniel Lord
Defendant:
Johnathan MacDonald and Shelli Kozachenko
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner 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.
