Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Smith v. Unknown
as 2:2021cv00414
Petitioner:
Willie Tinsley Smith
Respondent:
Unknown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tinsley v. Clark
as 7:2021cv00270
Respondent:
Harold W. Clark
Petitioner:
Jimmy Edward Tinsley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tinsley v. Clark
as 1:2021cv00526
Respondent:
Harold W. Clark
Petitioner:
Jimmy Edward Tinsley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tinsley v. Scott's Company et al
as 3:2020cv00697
Defendant:
Scott's Company, Richard Williams, Scott Craig and others
Plaintiff:
Eric Lang Tinsley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tinsley v. USA
as 1:2016cv00778
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Kevin Tinsley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Tinsley v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. et al
as 1:2016cv00014
Plaintiff:
Garry Tinsley
Defendant:
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. , The Hewlett-Packard Company Comprehensive Welfare Benefits Plan and The Hewlett-Packard Company Disability Plan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Tinsley et al v. Streich et al
as 3:2015cv00043
Plaintiff:
Daisy Tinsley and Jermeine Twyman
Defendant:
Heather Streich, Gary Fang, University of Virginia Physicians Group Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Moody v. The City of Newport News, Virginia et al
as 4:2014cv00099
Plaintiff:
Corey Moody
Defendant:
The City of Newport News, Virginia , James D. Fox , Richard W. Myers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tinsley v. USA
as 4:2012cv80489
Petitioner:
Curtis Daryle Tinsley
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Lewis et al v. Charlottesville Redevelopment & Housing Authority et al
as 3:2012cv00026
Defendant:
Charlottesville Redevelopment & Housing Authority and Constance Dunn
Plaintiff:
Deborah Cooper, Clarissa Folley, Harold Folley and others
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.
