Cases 1 - 10 of 1,951
Woodard v. SWRJA, Abingdon, VA Medical et al
as 7:2024cv00269
Plaintiff:
Rocky Lee Woodard
Defendant:
SWRJA, Abingdon, VA Medical and SWVRJA, Abingdon, VA Chaplin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WOODARD v. LLT MANAGEMENT LLC et al
as 3:2024cv05363
Defendant:
LLT MANAGEMENT LLC, LTL MANAGEMENT LLC, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC and others
Plaintiff:
MARY WOODARD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Kevin Giles v. Merrick Garland, et al
as 24-1320
Plaintiff:
KEVIN LA'VON GILES
Defendant:
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, DAWN N. ISON, DIANE NICOLE PRINC and others
JOHNSON v. TERRA et al
as 2:2024cv01610
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA TAYLOR JOHNSON
Defendant:
JOSEPH TERRA, CO 2 BANGER, CO 1 CALLOWAY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Woodard v. USA DO NOT DOCKET. ALL DOCKETING OCCURS IN THE CRIMINAL CASE.
as 0:2024cv01080
Petitioner:
Jyron Mendall Woodard
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Woodard v. Cedars Sinai Hospital, et al.
as 24-1837
Plaintiff:
SUSAN WOODARD
Defendant:
CEDARS SINAI HOSPITAL and ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF COLORADO
Stephen Plunkett v. Merrick Garland, et al
as 24-1639
Plaintiff:
Stephen Christopher Plunkett
Defendant:
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Collette Peters, John P. Yates, Warden and others
US v. William Ramey-Woodard
as 24-6271
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
WILLIAM PRESTON RAMEY-WOODARD
Woodard et al v. INSUL-CO.
as 9:2024cv80345
Plaintiff:
Mark F. Woodard, George Steve Stripling, Dustin K. Hall and others
Defendant:
INSUL-CO, Inc doing business as J.R. Swanson Plumbing Co.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.
Scott v. McLennan County Texas et al
as 6:2024cv00135
Plaintiff:
Bennie Daryl Scott
Defendant:
McLennan County Texas, Parnell McNamara, Ricky Armstrong 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.
