Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Robert Ardis v. Darlene Dickey, et al
as 24-10470
Plaintiff:
ROBERT MICHAEL ARDIS
Defendant:
DARLENE DICKEY, WILLIAM EDDINS, SARAH HARPER CRUTCHFIELD and others
ARDIS v. DICKEY et al
as 3:2023cv07017
Plaintiff:
ROBERT MICHAEL ARDIS
Defendant:
DARLENE DICKEY, WILLIAM EDDINS, SARAH HARPER CRUTCHFIELD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ARDIS v. DICKEY et al
as 4:2023cv00119
Plaintiff:
ROBERT MICHAEL ARDIS
Defendant:
DARLENE DICKEY, WILLIAM EDDINS, SARAH HARPER CRUTCHFIELD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
AVANT v. STEFANI et al
as 3:2021cv00871
Defendant:
UNITED OF STATES OF AMERICA, DIANE STEFANI and WILLIAM EDDINS
Plaintiff:
RAHASAAN AVANT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCELWAIN v. EDDINS et al
as 3:2020cv05839
Plaintiff:
JEFFERY HUDSON MCELWAIN
Defendant:
LAURA YOUNG and WILLIAM EDDINS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
NORDQUIST v. EDDINS et al
as 3:2020cv05800
Defendant:
LAWRENCE KEEFE, JOHN MILLER and WILLIAM EDDINS
Plaintiff:
ERIC NORDQUIST
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CRYSTAL v. PORSCHE OF DESTIN et al
as 3:2020cv05579
Plaintiff:
CRYSTAL GROUP INC and JEFFERY T CRYSTAL
Defendant:
PORSCHE OF DESTIN, OKALOOSA STATE ATTORNEY, OKALOOSA CRIMINAL COURTS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PALMGREN v. DONOVAN et al
as 3:2019cv00080
Defendant:
WENDELL HALL, WILLIAM BLAKE WEEKLEY, OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA and others
Plaintiff:
CLAYTON PALMGREN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Robert Ardis v. Gary Bergosh, et al
as 18-12745
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT MICHAEL ARDIS
Defendant - Appellee:
PAM CHILDERS, GARY BERGOSH, LAURA DANHEISSER and others
ARDIS v. BERGOSH, et al
as 3:2018cv01273
Plaintiff:
ROBERT MICHAEL ARDIS
Defendant:
GARY BERGOSH, PAMELA CHILDERS, LAURA DANHEISSER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
