US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Torts - Injury Cases
Cases 41 - 50 of 6,696
Weigel v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01060
Plaintiff:
Ike Weigel
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Turner v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01070
Plaintiff:
Glenn Turner
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Bibi v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01063
Plaintiff:
Batool Bibi
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Cary v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01062
Plaintiff:
Janice Cary
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Holland et al v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01071
Plaintiff:
Eddie E. Holland and Shannon Taylor Holland
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
McDowell v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01074
Plaintiff:
Kathy S McDowell
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Rawlins v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01051
Plaintiff:
Gerald Rawlins
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Tait v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01056
Plaintiff:
Jim Tait
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Clark v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01046
Plaintiff:
Sheridan Clark
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Fox v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01050
Plaintiff:
Robert Fox
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
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.