Cases 1 - 10 of 226
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv24673
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Gregory Sistrunk v. City of Hillview, KY, et al
as 23-5913
Plaintiff / Appellant:
GREGORY S. SISTRUNK, as Administrator of the Estate of Williene Sistrunk
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF HILLVIEW, KY and CHRISTOPHER BOONE
SISTRUNK v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv05536
Plaintiff:
DAVID K SISTRUNK
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Hollins v. Sistrunk et al
as 3:2023cv00558
Plaintiff:
Gregory A. Hollins
Defendant:
Superintendent Brady Sistrunk and D. Ellis
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WRIGHT v. SISTRUNK
as 4:2023cv00377
Plaintiff:
RONTARIAN WRIGHT
Defendant:
P SISTRUNK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SISTRUNK v. COUNTRYMAN
as 4:2023cv00149
Petitioner:
TREVIS TYRELL SISTRUNK
Respondent:
Sheriff GREGORY COUNTRYMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
In re: Rontarian Wright
as 23-12516
Petitioner:
In re: RONTARIAN LAMAR WRIGHT
Respondent:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PATRICIA SISTRUNK, STATE OF FLORIDA and others
SISTRUNK v. MAPLES et al
as 4:2023cv00100
Plaintiff:
GARY KEITH SISTRUNK
Defendant:
SCOTT MAPLES, GURD, ESLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sistrunk v. Washington Senior Living, LLC
as 1:2023cv02995
Plaintiff:
Dominique R. Sistrunk
Defendant:
Washington Senior Living, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act
Adams et al v. Max Credit Union
as 3:2023cv00316
Plaintiff:
Pamela Adams and Donovan Sistrunk
Defendant:
Max Credit Union
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330 Breach of Contract
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.
