Cases 1 - 10 of 21
SPENCER v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv00692
Plaintiff:
DAVINA RUTH SPENCER
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Sharon Spencer v. The People of the State of Cal
as 14-55601
Petitioner - Appellant:
SHARON RUTH SPENCER
Respondent - Appellee:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Sharon Ruth Spencer v. The People of the State of California
as 2:2013cv09409
Petitioner:
Sharon Ruth Spencer
Respondent:
The People of the State of California
HOPSON v. RAINEY et al
as 4:2013cv00084
Defendant:
BENNY BERRY, COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE and others
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
DeAndre Hopson v. Ruth Spencer, et al
as 13-5571
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Defendant - Appellee:
RUTH SPENCER, COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ATTORNEY GENERAL and others
HOPSON v. BERRY et al
as 4:2013cv00045
Defendant:
BENNY BERRY, CHARLIE CUNNINGHAM, DENETRA GATES and others
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Hopson v. Cunningham et al
as 3:2013cv00226
Plaintiff:
DeAndre Hopson
Defendant:
Charlie Cunningham, CPS Louisville, Judge Gerber and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HOPSON v. SPENCER et al
as 4:2013cv00026
Defendant:
BENNY BERRY, GARY HUFFMAN and RUTH SPENCER
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Hopson v. Louisville Metro Police et al
as 3:2013cv00188
Plaintiff:
DeAndre Hopson
Defendant:
Louisville Metro Police, Ruth Spencer, CPS Social Worker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HOPSON v. SPENCER
as 4:2013cv00009
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Defendant:
RUTH SPENCER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
