Cases 1 - 10 of 12
BEACON SALES ACQUISITION INC. v. SRI ROOFING & SHEET METAL, LLC et al
as 2:2022cv01355
Plaintiff:
BEACON SALES ACQUISITION INC. doing business as BEACON BUILDING PRODUCTS
Defendant:
SRI ROOFING & SHEET METAL, LLC doing business as SRI ROOFING AND SHEET METAL, ROBERT L. RAND, JR. and THOMAS C. SMITH, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Burkett v. United States of America et al
as 2:2018cv01101
Defendant:
Jay Town, Renee Elliot, United States of America and others
Plaintiff:
Timothy Terrance Burkett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv02056
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Smith v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC
as 1:2014cv00060
Plaintiff:
Thomas C. Smith, Sr.
Defendant:
Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC and George R. Batiste
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Smith, Thomas v. Meisner, Michael
as 3:2013cv00337
Petitioner:
Thomas C. Smith
Respondent:
Michael Meisner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Morris v. Smith et al
as 2:2012cv05065
Plaintiff:
Damon Malon Morris
Defendant:
Thomas C Smith, David Scantlin, Eric Biviano and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010at00554
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010cv01052
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Smith v. Diversicare Leasing Corp. et al
as 6:2009cv06018
Plaintiff:
Thomas C. Smith and Thomas C. Smith
Defendant:
Diversicare Leasing Corp., Diversicare Management Services Company, Advocate, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Thomas C. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., et al.
as PAE/2:08-CV-68716
Defendant:
Ford Motor Co
Plaintiff:
Thomas C. Smith
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.
