Cases 1 - 10 of 44
HINES v. CITADEL BANK
as 2:2023cv01737
Plaintiff:
ROBERT LEROY HINES
Defendant:
CITADEL BANK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
HINES v. FERGUSON
as 2:2023cv01375
Plaintiff:
ROBERT LEROY HINES
Defendant:
TAMMY FERGUSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HINES v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv20293
Plaintiff:
ROBERT FRANKLIN HINES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Douse v. Duffee et al
as 2:2022cv00531
Plaintiff:
Sammy James Douse
Defendant:
Shawn Duffee, Dr. Danielle E. Koskey, Dr. Carol Depass and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HINES v. THE LAW FIRM OF LAWYERS MEMTHOMEONOSIS ESQUIRE et al
as 2:2022cv02698
Plaintiff:
ROBERT LEROY HINES
Defendant:
THE LAW FIRM OF LAWYERS MEMTHOMEONOSIS ESQUIRE, 20 STEEL MILL WORKERS QUESTIONS and MRS. LERKINS STEEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HINES v. FERGUSON
as 2:2022cv02617
Plaintiff:
ROBERT LEROY HINES
Defendant:
TAMMY FERGUSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HINES v. CIDADEL BANK
as 2:2022cv01820
Plaintiff:
ROBERT LEROY HINES
Defendant:
CIDADEL BANK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
HINES v. FERGUSON et al
as 2:2021cv05203
Plaintiff:
ROBERT L. HINES, III
Defendant:
TAMMY FERGUSON, MANDY SIPPLE, C.E.R.T. JOHN DOES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hines v. Lumpkin
as 21-10808
Petitioner / Appellant:
Robert Dale Hines
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Hines v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
as 8:2021cv01343
Defendant:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Plaintiff:
ROBERT D HINES, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERTO DE JESUS MONTANEZ, JR. and Robert D. Hines
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1471
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.
