Cases 51 - 60 of 97
In re: William Brooks
as 15-11524
Petitioner:
In re: WILLIAM BROOKS
Mandamus Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
KELLEY et al v. NITELINES USA INC
as 4:2014mc00028
Plaintiff:
DAVID KELLEY , PHYLLIS COVINGTON , DWAYNE HINES and others
Defendant:
NITELINES USA INC
Garnishee:
Tallahassee State Bank
Wildermuth v. Consultants in Pulmonary Medicine et al
as 2:2014cv02203
Plaintiff:
Pamela Wildermuth
Defendant:
Consultants in Pulmonary Medicine, Dominique M. Crain, Vance R. Burns and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
KELLEY et al v. NITELINES USA, INC.
as 4:2014cv00215
Defendant:
NITELINES USA, INC.
Plaintiff:
DAVID KELLEY , PHYLLIS COVINGTON , DWAYNE HINES and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Enforcement of Judgment
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Brooks et al
as 1:2014mi00012
Plaintiff:
Wells Fargo Bank NA
Defendant:
William Brooks, Keith Brooking, KB 51 Enterprises LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1963
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Brooks et al
as 1:2014mi00011
Plaintiff:
Wells Fargo Bank NA
Defendant:
William Brooks, Keith Brooking, KB 51 Enterprises LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1963
William Brooks v. Secretary, Florida Department, et al
as 13-15423
Petitioner - Appellant:
WILLIAM BROOKS
Respondent - Appellee:
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. BBMJ, LLC et al
as 3:2013mc00028
Plaintiff:
Wells Fargo Bank NA
Defendant:
BBMJ, LLC, William Brooks, Keith Brooking and others
Brooks v. 11 Block Staff CO's et al
as 1:2013cv00904
Plaintiff:
William Brooks
Defendant:
11 Block Staff CO's, Five Points Med Staff and Srg. K
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lau v. Cirillo et al
as 5:2013cv03946
Plaintiff:
Ronald G Lau
Defendant:
Ceil Cirillo, Economic Development Department, City of Santa Cruz 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.
