Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Samuel Jacox Lewis v. State of Oregon
as 22-35811
Petitioner / Appellant:
SAMUEL ROBERT WAYNE JACOX LEWIS, also known as Samuel Wayne Jacox
Respondent / Appellee:
STATE OF OREGON, Current supervision via State of Washington, on Oregon's behalf
Lewis v. State of Oregon
as 3:2022cv00731
Petitioner:
Samuel Robert Wayne Jacox Lewis and Samuel Wayne Jacox
Respondent:
State of Oregon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LEWIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2021cv17792
Plaintiff:
WAYNE KENNETH LEWIS and KENNETH WAYNE LEWIS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MERRICK GARLAND and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lewis v. DiCocco
as 3:2020cv00601
Plaintiff:
Wayne L. Lewis
Defendant:
Dr. M. DiCocco
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Middleton v. Lewis et al
as 2:2019cv00110
Defendant:
Norma Lawless, George Griffin, Michael Murphy and others
Plaintiff:
Kelly Middleton
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00028
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1400
US v. Wayne Lewi
as 17-7047
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
WAYNE L. LEWIS
US v. Wayne Lewi
as 16-4030
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
WAYNE L. LEWIS
Lewis v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2012dp23375
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , DePuy, Inc. , DePuy International Limited and others
Plaintiff:
Wayne S. Lewis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Abercrombie et al v. Forest River, Inc. et al
as 1:2009cv00466
Plaintiff:
Floyd D. Abercrombie, Floyd D. Abercrombie, Nelda E. Abercrombie and others
Defendant:
Forest River, Inc., CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc., Bechtel National, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
