Cases 21 - 30 of 39
Rumple v. Colvin
as 2:2015cv00336
Plaintiff:
Billy Jo Rumple
Defendant:
Carolyn W Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
MOON v. LOCKETT, et al.
as 2:2014cv00068
Defendant:
BASINGER, J. BEIGHLEY, BETTS and others
Plaintiff:
DARNELL W. MOON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
MOON v. JOYNER et al
as 1:2013cv02012
Defendant:
BASINGER, J. BEIGHLEY, BETTS and others
Plaintiff:
DARNELL WESLEY MOON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
MOON v. LOCKETT
as 1:2013cv02010
Defendant:
BASINGER, J. BEIGHLEY, BETTS and others
Plaintiff:
DARNELL WESLEY MOON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Bradshaw et al
as 3:2013cv03065
Plaintiff:
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
Defendant:
Brian R. Bradshaw , Marni Bradshaw , Liquid Gold Applicators, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement
STEVENS v. LOCKETT et al
as 2:2013cv00038
Defendant:
CRAIG APKER, BRACE, DOE and others
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL T. STEVENS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STEVENS v. LOCKETT et al
as 1:2012cv01219
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL T. STEVENS
Defendant:
CHARLES LOCKETT, CRAIG APKER, RHODES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MOON v. LOCKETT et al
as 1:2012cv00771
Defendant:
OFFICER BASINGER, J. BEIGHLEY, OFFICER BETTS and others
Plaintiff:
DARNELL WESLEY MOON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2011cv05810
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
RUMPLE et al v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2011cv65921
Plaintiff:
RICHARD ALLEN RUMPLE, SR. and VIVIAN RUMPLE
Defendant:
ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC.
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.
