Cases 1 - 10 of 108
Moore v. Stephens et al
as 4:2024cv00269
Plaintiff:
Ellar J Moore
Defendant:
Beth Stephens, Chase Autwell, Jonathan J Rohlfs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Rohlfing et al
as 3:2023cv03939
Plaintiff:
Ivan Jones
Defendant:
Neal Rohlfing, Kyle Koester, Austin Crimm and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rohlfs v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co.
as 0:2023cv05879
Plaintiff:
Christopher S. Rohlfs
Defendant:
Progressive Direct Insurance Co.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Insurance Contract
Doe et al v. Lowery et al
as 4:2023cv01309
Plaintiff:
John doe and Jane Doe
Defendant:
Timothy J. Lowery, Missouri Public Entity Risk Management, Joseph Monahan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rohlfs v. Nexstar Media Inc
as 1:2023cv01050
Plaintiff:
Zachary Rohlfs
Defendant:
Nexstar Media Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Paul Johnson v. Thuddy, et al
as 23-15167
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL DAVID JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
THUDDY, MD., CMO, F. KREITLER, M.D., L. W. ROHLFING, MD and others
Orlando v. Rohlfs et al
as 2:2022cv02196
Plaintiff:
George Orlando
Defendant:
Zachary Rohlfs, Miranda L Soucie and Spiros Law PC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
(PC) McNeal v. Evert et al
as 2:2022cv01360
Plaintiff:
Vernon Wayne McNeal
Defendant:
B Evert, F. Leckie, A Ervin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Paul Johnson v. Thuddy, et al
as 22-16116
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL DAVID JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
THUDDY, M.D., CMO, F. KREITLER, M.D., L. W. ROHLFING, M.D. and others
Rohlf v. Lumpkin
as 22-10038
Petitioner / Appellant:
Anthony Rohlf
Respondent / Appellee:
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
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.
