Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Smith v. Rupert, et al
as 3:2022cv00851
Plaintiff:
James D. Smith
Defendant:
f/n/u Rupert, f/n/u Rameren, f/n/u Holder and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rupert et al v. Parks et al
as 3:2010cv00453
Plaintiff:
Alfreeda Rupert and Joseph Rupert
Defendant:
Michael Parks and Brother's Concrete Construction Corp.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Fulghum v. Boyce et al
as 4:2010cv00063
Plaintiff:
Randall Edwin Fulghum
Defendant:
Randall Boyce, (f/n/u) Bear, (f/n/u) Cam and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fulghum v. Boyce et al
as 1:2010cv00077
Plaintiff:
Randall Edwin Fulghum
Defendant:
Randall Boyce, (f/n/u) Bear, (f/n/u) Cam and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Fulghum v. Boyce et al
as 1:2010mc00013
Plaintiff:
Randall Edwin Fulghum
Defendant:
Randall Boyce, (f/n/u) Bear, (f/n/u) Cam and others
Madoff v. Barron's dba Barron's.com a/k/a www.Barrons.com, et al
as 4:2009cv00048
Plaintiff:
Bernard Madoff doing business as Jonathan Lee Riches also known as Arthur Nadel and Arthur Nadel
Defendant:
Barron's doing business as Barron's.com also known as www.Barrons.com, Ward S McGuiness, Diane Sipprelle and others
Respondent:
Warden Stephen Dewalt
Petitioner:
Jonathan Lee Riches
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2008cv00138
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Trustee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2008cv00137
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Trustee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Rupert, et al. v. Home Depot, Inc., et al.
as 2:2007cv00069
Plaintiff:
Virginia L Rupert, Virginia L Rupert, Allen D Rupert and others
Defendant:
The Home Depot USA, Inc. and The Home Depot USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
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.
