District Court Cases in Oklahoma
Cases 21 - 30 of 53,049
Washington v. Holder et al
as 4:2024cv00229
Plaintiff:
Jermaine T Washington
Defendant:
Barret Holder and Ludi Leitch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Kemmerlin v. Bicentennial Inc.
as 4:2024cv00230
Plaintiff:
Samantha Kemmerlin
Defendant:
Bicentennial Inc. doing business as Lady Godivas
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Shook v. Williams
as 5:2024cv00489
Petitioner:
Michael Sean Shook
Respondent:
Richard Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mink v. Bridges et al
as 5:2024cv00484
Petitioner:
Damon Lee Mink
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges and Oklahoma State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Roe v. Quintessa LLC
as 5:2024cv00492
Plaintiff:
Tonya Roe
Defendant:
Quintessa LLC doing business as Quintessa Marketing
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Babcock v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
as 5:2024cv00493
Plaintiff:
Justin Babcock
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Robinett's Floor Covering, LLC v. Walmart Inc.
as 4:2024cv00233
Plaintiff:
Robinett's Floor Covering, LLC
Defendant:
Walmart Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Small v. Johnson
as 4:2024cv00224
Plaintiff:
William Oris Small, Jr
Defendant:
Allana Nicole Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Nolan v. Davis et al
as 5:2024cv00487
Plaintiff:
Edford Ray Nolan, Jr
Defendant:
Bradley Davis and Enid Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davison v. Smith et al
as 5:2024cv00483
Plaintiff:
Alonzo Gabriel Davison
Defendant:
Clifford J Smith, Scott Rowland, Robert L Hudson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
