University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Olivia Y. v. Barbour CW-MS-0001
Docket / Court 3:04-cv-00251 ( S.D. Miss. )
State/Territory Mississippi
Case Type(s) Child Welfare
Public Benefits / Government Services
Attorney Organization Children's Rights, Inc.
Case Summary
On March 30, 2004, children in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Human Service's Division of Family and Children's Services, on behalf of abused and neglected children in the State of Mississippi, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The ... read more >
On March 30, 2004, children in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Human Service's Division of Family and Children's Services, on behalf of abused and neglected children in the State of Mississippi, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Division of Family and Children's Services (DFCS) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private and public counsel, the plaintiffs asked for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The complaint alleged that the defendants harmed and put at risk members of the plaintiff class in numerous ways: failing to investigate or confirm credible reports of abuse and neglect; failing to provide services to children found to be abused or neglected; failing to respond to requests for applications by people interested in becoming foster and adoptive parents, resulting in a shortage of foster parents; placing children in unsafe or unsuitable care and failing to monitor in-custody children to ascertain that they are safe; over-institutionalizing foster children by placing children of all ages in institutional or group settings regardless of their needs; failing to provide foster children with necessary medical, dental, and mental health services; and failing to file petitions to free children for adoption by terminating parental rights in accordance with federal statutory timeframes. The complaint also alleged that the state was repeatedly denied federal funds because of deficient case record documentation and the placement of children in unlicensed homes and facilities, and that the defendants failed to follow through the reform plan they initiated in the late 1990s to address the state's systemic child welfare failures. All this, the plaintiffs said, was due to understaffing, mismanagement, and the failure to implement necessary reforms, which resulted in violations of Substantive Due Process, Procedural Due Process, Equal Protection, state law, and the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendants' violation of class members' rights was unlawful; a permanent injunction forbidding the defendants to subject members of the plaintiff class to practices that violated their rights, including remedial provisions to ensure that a detailed curative plan was developed, implemented, and monitored; and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 30, 2004, plaintiffs sought class action certification for two plaintiff subclasses: (1) all children who are or will be in the custody of DFCS ("In-Custody Class"); and (2) all of those children who are not in DFCS custody, but have been or are at risk of being abused and neglected and about whom the defendants have received a report of abuse or neglect ("Protective Services Class"). The defendants then moved to dismiss on June 1, 2014 and filed a motion to stay consideration of the motion for class certification pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

On November 18, 2004, the Court (Judge Tom S. Lee) dismissed all claims sought to be asserted by and on behalf of the "Protective Services Class" and also dismissed the claims of the "In-Custody Class" for violation of their alleged procedural due process rights and for violation of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. Hence, there only remained claims of the putative "In-Custody Class" for violation of their substantive due process rights. 351 F. Supp. 543.

On March 11, 2005, the Court (Judge Lee) granted class certification for the "In-Custody Class" only, reasoning that even though each plaintiff and proposed class member may not have suffered the same type or degree of harm, because it appeared that defendants' alleged acts and omissions posed a significant risk of similar harm to all (or at least the requisite "significant number" of) children in DHS custody, the requirements of commonality and typicality were satisfied. Judge Lee also held that plaintiffs' allegations related to defendants' actions and inaction with respect to the class as a whole and the relief plaintiffs sought would be relief with respect to the class as a whole.

Discovery and litigation continued while the parties entered settlement discussions. These talks were successful and, on April 3, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a stipulated settlement agreement. The court granted this motion the same day.

The settlement stated that the parties agreed to move directly to the remedial phase of the litigation, and that the parties would attempt to agree on a remedial plan developed by the defendants and the Council on Accreditation (COA). The plan would state specific actions and timelines for the defendants to achieve accreditation and conform the state standards with federal standards regarding foster care and would also cover the services and plans for the named plaintiffs. It would be court enforceable and provide for an outside monitor. The parties agreed to mediation to try to facilitate settlement and that they would proceed to a trial as to the scope of the necessary remedy, if such mediation failed.

On November 8, 2007, the parties agreed upon the Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan and filed a joint motion for its approval. On January 4, 2008, the court approved the plan. The Plan stated that:
  • the named plaintiffs who remained in state custody as of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement all will have an individual plan that provides for permanency and independent living services monitored by the plaintiffs' counsel;
  • the defendants will meet the standards and outcome measures of this Plan within five years of the court's approval or within any earlier interim timelines specified;
  • the DFCS's foster care services will be accredited by COA;
  • the director of DFCS will have an advanced degree relevant to the agency's mission and services and at least five years of related experience;
  • no DFCS caseworker will carry an excessive caseload and individual caseloads shall be measured monthly;
  • all newly hired DFCS foster care workers will have an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human services field, or a B.A. in social work or a comparable human service field with two years of related experience;
  • the DFCS will maintain a training unit to provide comprehensive child welfare training to all employees;
  • the DFCS will begin implementing a separate continuous quality improvement (CQI) system and will improve recordkeeping and information retention in a variety of specified ways;
  • the DFCS will engage in a thorough screening of the child and conduct an individualized assessment of the family upon taking the child in custody for foster care services;
  • shortly after a child's entrance into foster care, a team meeting will be convened to develop a service plan for the child and to document a permanency plan in the child's case record;
  • the DFCS will maintain a well-publicized statewide child abuse hotline for the reporting of abuse and/or neglect;
  • each child will receive a comprehensive health assessment, periodic medical examinations, and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment throughout their stay in state custody;
  • the DFCS caseworkers will screen each child for general and special educational needs and take reasonable steps to ensure that school-age foster children are registered for and attending accredited schools;
  • regardless of whether a child's foster care placement is being supervised by DFCS or by a contract agency, the assigned DFCS caseworker will meet with the child and visit at least once a month during the child's placement;
  • the DFCS will make available a sufficient number of appropriate placements for all children in its custody; and
  • defendants' compliance will be monitored by independent monitoring.
There was also a fees settlement agreement. On August 7, 2008, the Court (Judge Lee) granted attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiffs of nearly $5 million. Monitoring fees continued.

On June 5, 2009, the monitor's report noted that, despite the defendants' significant accomplishments, including initiatives that had been introduced and were being managed by a newly hired and experienced team of child welfare professionals, the pace of progress during Period 1 did not meet the Agreement's requirements. To meet the required reforms within the five-year timetable, the monitor stated that the defendants would need to accelerate and intensify their efforts.

The next year, the monitor's report noted that, although DFCS has been reorganized under a new management team and had received more funding, both the pace and breadth of defendants' progress during Period 2 was, again, inadequate. Specifically, efforts to satisfy the Agreement requirements continued to be belated and were often insufficient.

On July 6, 2012, the parties agreed to and the court approved the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan, the filing of which constituted the commencement of Implementation Period 3. This third implementation plan and each subsequent annual implementation plan were incorporated in the Agreement and would be developed jointly with the parties 90 calendar days prior to the end of the previous 12-month period. The Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan provided a more specific statewide and region-by-region approach to reform.

On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt, requesting that the Court find that defendants in noncompliance with the Period 3 Implementation Plan and the July 9 Order. They requested that the Court appoint experts with expertise in implementing child welfare system reform to conduct an organizational analysis.

On July 23, 2015, Judge Lee ordered that the defendants retain Public Catalyst to conduct an organizational analysis of DFCS to assess the state of the system and hire an Executive Director of DFCS. Judge Lee also ordered that the parties negotiate a Court-enforceable Remedial Order based on the recommendations within three weeks of the date of the Final Organizational Analysis Report. Judge Lee ordered that the DFCS Executive Director consult with an Advisory Group of three experts for not less than three years following the filing date of the Remedial Order and stated that if the defendants did not comply with the terms of the order, then the plaintiffs could immediately seek a hearing on the remedial portion of their motion.

On December 22, 2015, Judge Lee granted the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Interim Remedial Order ordering that the defendants house DFCS within the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS), that DFCS begin oversight of its own budget, personnel, and management information system functions, that DFCS implement caseload standards as set forth in the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA), and that DFCS build a better-resourced DFCS Field Operations team and better allocate its resources. Finally, Judge Lee ordered that the remedy phase of the motion for contempt shall be continued until May 15, 2016 at which time the parties shall submit a Final Remedial Order to the Court or, in the absence of an agreement on a Final Remedial Order, the plaintiffs shall proceed with the remedy phase of the contempt motion.

Defendants failed to meet the standards set forth in the MSA. On January 6, 2016, the Monitor submitted a report concluding that "defendants' performance declined" on both statewide and regional levels. No region met "even half" of its requirements. The Monitor identified a number of systemic issues, including excessive caseloads, inadequate supervision, and poor services exacerbated by a 26% increase in the number of children in need of defendants' care from 2013 to 2015.

Little progress was made during 2016. Judge Lee did grant a motion for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees made under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after reducing some hourly rates to reflect Mississippi norms on May 6. And on May 19, the parties agreed to a second stipulated remedial order in which the defendants admitted to being out of compliance with the MSA. In addition, they agreed that Public Catalyst would certify whether defendants were in compliance with the specified sections of the Interim Remedial Order.

On December 6, 2016, the Monitor released additional findings on defendants' compliance with the MSA. The Monitor identified high-quality work as "more the exception than the rule," and concluded it was "imperative that defendants work to enhance quality and consistency on all steps of the . . . process." The defendants asserted that they were addressing the problem areas.

Shortly thereafter, the parties revamped their settlement agreement and enforcement protocols. The December 19, 2016 Second Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan laid out comprehensive new standards in (1) leadership; (2) child safety; (3) family-based placement; (4) placement standards; (5) visitation; (6) permanency; (7) transitions to adulthood; (8) child well-being; and administrative details of the settlement. It took effect on January 1, 2017. At the same time, the parties adopted a Stipulated Third Remedial Order (STRO). The STRO specified specific steps that the defendants were to take to meet their obligations. It also reiterated that defendants were not in compliance with the MSA but acknowledged that they lacked "the capacity to comply."

Judge Lee granted another motion for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees on July 21, 2017, largely rejecting defendants' objections that plaintiffs' fee requests were overly vague; another fee award was granted on April 9, 2018.

On May 31, 2018, plaintiffs moved for an order declaring defendants in contempt for noncompliance with the STRO. In particular, they alleged that only 61% of defendant's employees met performance targets; the STRO required 90%. Over the next months, the parties engaged in discovery. On January 17, 2019 the court deferred ruling on compliance until after the monitor's June report was filed. After the report was filed on June 11, 2019, the plaintiffs renewed their motion. Discovery continued, as did the biannual reports from the monitor.

As of May 20, 2020 discovery is ongoing with oral argument set for August 4, 2020.

Alice Liu - 11/09/2012
Frances Hollander - 02/13/2016
Timothy Leake - 11/15/2018
Alex Moody - 05/20/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Content of Injunction
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Monitor/Master
Monitoring
Preliminary relief granted
Recordkeeping
Remedial education
Reporting
Training
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Disability
disability, unspecified
General
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Adoption
Classification / placement
Commitment procedure
Education
Failure to discipline
Failure to supervise
Failure to train
Family abuse and neglect
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Foster care (benefits, training)
Funding
Incident/accident reporting & investigations
Individualized planning
Juveniles
Neglect by staff
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Pattern or Practice
Personal injury
Placement in mental health facilities
Placement in shelters
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Reassessment and care planning
Record-keeping
Relative caretakers
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Timeliness of case assignment
Totality of conditions
Medical/Mental Health
Dental care
Medical care, general
Mental health care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), 42 U.S.C. § 620 et seq.
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
State law
Defendant(s) Department of Human Services
Division of Family and Children's Services
Governor of Mississippi
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs, on behalf of abused and neglected children in Mississippi’s child welfare system, allege that the state systematically failed to care for and protect the state’s abused and neglected children.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations Children's Rights, Inc.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Granted
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2007 - n/a
Filed 03/30/2004
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing CW-MS-0002 : Troupe v. Barbour (S.D. Miss.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Olivia Y. v. Barbour
National Center for Youth Law
Date: Nov. 18, 2016
By: National Center for Youth Law
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Olivia Y. v. Barbour
Children’s Rights
Date: Jul. 6, 2012
By: Children’s Rights
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Legal Accountability in the Service-Based Welfare State: Lessons from Child Welfare Reform
Date: Summer 2009
By: Kathleen G. Noonan, Charles F. Sabel, William H. Simon (Center for High Impact Philanthropy , Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School Faculty)
Citation: 34 Law & Soc. Inquiry 523 (Summer 2009)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Court Docket(s)
S.D. Miss.
09/27/2017
3:04−cv−00251
CW-MS-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
S.D. Miss.
03/30/2004
Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
CW-MS-0001-0001.pdf | External Link | Detail
S.D. Miss.
05/17/2004
Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 25]
CW-MS-0001-0004.pdf | Detail
S.D. Miss.
03/11/2005
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 84]
CW-MS-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
08/29/2006
Order [ECF# 350] (2006 WL 5187653)
CW-MS-0001-0005.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
04/03/2007
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Brief in Support [ECF# 401]
CW-MS-0001-0006.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
04/03/2007
Stipulated Settlement Agreement [ECF# 401-2]
CW-MS-0001-0007.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
04/03/2007
Order [ECF# 402]
CW-MS-0001-0008.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
05/14/2007
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Stipulated Settlement Agreement [ECF# 420]
CW-MS-0001-0009.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
11/08/2007
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Brief in Support [ECF# 438]
CW-MS-0001-0010.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
01/04/2008
Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan [ECF# 459]
CW-MS-0001-0002.pdf | External Link | Detail
S.D. Miss.
05/09/2008
Order [ECF# 473]
CW-MS-0001-0012.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
08/07/2008
Consent Order [ECF# 480]
CW-MS-0001-0013.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
01/04/2009
Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan [ECF# 459]
CW-MS-0001-0011.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
06/05/2009
Court Monitor's Report to the Court Regarding Defendants' Progress Toward Meeting Period-1 Requirements [ECF# 488]
CW-MS-0001-0017.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
08/04/2009
Order [ECF# 492]
CW-MS-0001-0014.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
09/08/2010
MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING PERIOD 2 REQUIREMENTS [ECF# 503]
CW-MS-0001-0016.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
07/06/2012
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Plan [ECF# 571]
CW-MS-0001-0015.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
07/12/2012
Agreement Regarding the Enhancement of Federal Funding [ECF# 573]
CW-MS-0001-0022.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
01/25/2013
The Court Monitor's Status Report to the Court Regarding Progress During Period Three [ECF# 580]
CW-MS-0001-0023.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
09/05/2013
The Court Monitor's Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 as Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced by the Defendants [ECF# 591]
CW-MS-0001-0024.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
09/13/2013
Plaintiffs' Response to the Court Monitor's Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 as Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced by the Defendants [ECF# 592]
CW-MS-0001-0025.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
09/16/2013
Plaintiffs' Amended Response to the Court Monitor's Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 as Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced by the Defendants [ECF# 593]
CW-MS-0001-0026.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
05/08/2014
The Court Monitor's Report to the Court Regarding Implementation Period 3 and the June 24, 2013 Order [ECF# 604]
CW-MS-0001-0018.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
12/23/2014
Modified Mississipi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan - Period 5 Implementation Plan [ECF# 618-1]
CW-MS-0001-0019.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
06/15/2015
The Court Monitor's Report to the Court Regarding Implementation Period 4 [ECF# 655]
CW-MS-0001-0020.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
07/23/2015
Agreed Order Continuing the Hearing on Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Contempt [ECF# 664]
CW-MS-0001-0021.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
05/06/2016
Order [ECF# 691]
CW-MS-0001-0027.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
12/19/2016
2nd Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan [ECF# 712]
CW-MS-0001-0028.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
12/19/2016
Stipulated Third Remedial Order [ECF# 713]
CW-MS-0001-0029.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
S.D. Miss.
07/21/2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order [ECF# 724]
CW-MS-0001-0030.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Ball, F. Keith (S.D. Miss.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Lee, Tom Stewart (S.D. Miss.) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0003 | CW-MS-0001-0005 | CW-MS-0001-0008 | CW-MS-0001-0011 | CW-MS-0001-0012 | CW-MS-0001-0013 | CW-MS-0001-0014 | CW-MS-0001-0015 | CW-MS-0001-0021 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-0027 | CW-MS-0001-0028 | CW-MS-0001-0029 | CW-MS-0001-0030 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Monitors/Masters Lopes, Grace Michele (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0016 | CW-MS-0001-0017 | CW-MS-0001-0018 | CW-MS-0001-0020 | CW-MS-0001-0023 | CW-MS-0001-0024 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Bentley, Michael J. (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Carbone, Christian D. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0019 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-0025 | CW-MS-0001-0026 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Crean, Tara S. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Davis, Julia L. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Dixon, Stephen Andrew (Louisiana) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Drinkwater, W. Wayne Jr. (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0001 | CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0019 | CW-MS-0001-0021 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-0025 | CW-MS-0001-0026 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Ingber, Miriam F. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-0025 | CW-MS-0001-0026 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Kendrick, Corene (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Lambiase, Susan (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Lang, John F. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-0025 | CW-MS-0001-0026 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Leech, Stephen H. (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Lowry, Marcia Robinson (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0002 | CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0019 | CW-MS-0001-0021 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-0025 | CW-MS-0001-0026 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Manne, Eric S. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-9000
McAnally, Melody (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0002 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Nothenberg, Shirim (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0013 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Piskora, John A. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-0025 | CW-MS-0001-0026 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Pitchal, Erik S. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Polansky, Jessica E. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Robinson-Glasser, Sara (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Ross, Margaret (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Russo, Sarah (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Thompson, Eric E. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0004 | CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Wood, Kathryn Anne (New York) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Elder, Amy Kebert (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Fortenberry, Dewitt L. Jr. (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0013 | CW-MS-0001-0019 | CW-MS-0001-0021 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Hood, Jim (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0002
Mallett, Betty A (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Pizzetta, Harold Edward III (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0019 | CW-MS-0001-0021 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Rachal, Kenya Key (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0021 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Rouse, John T. (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Scott, Samuel E. (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Young, Ashley Tullos (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-0022 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Zmitrovich, Gretchen L. (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-0006 | CW-MS-0001-0007 | CW-MS-0001-0009 | CW-MS-0001-0010 | CW-MS-0001-9000
Other Lawyers Bedi, Sheila A. (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000
Mathis, Paul (Mississippi) show/hide docs
CW-MS-0001-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -