US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Real Property Cases
Cases 81 - 90 of 1,489
Rancifer v. C.R. Bard Inc et al
as 2:2023cv00825
Plaintiff:
Jacqueline Rancifer
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Bruce v. City Of Cincinnati
as 1:2023cv00112
Plaintiff:
Douglas Bruce
Defendant:
City Of Cincinnati
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bruce v. City of Zanesville, Ohio
as 2:2023cv00773
Plaintiff:
Douglas Bruce
Defendant:
City of Zanesville, Ohio
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Violation 5th & 8th Amendme
Helm v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00611
Plaintiff:
John S. Helm
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Sinatra-Buckley v. C.R. Bard Inc et al
as 2:2023cv00610
Plaintiff:
Karen Sinatra-Buckley
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Shainock v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00536
Plaintiff:
Jerry Shainock
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and DAVOL, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Tyson v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00537
Plaintiff:
Otto Tyson
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Chilton v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00506
Plaintiff:
Sharon Chilton
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Quinn v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00504
Plaintiff:
Connie Quinn
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Valvoline Inc. v. Superash Remainderman Limited Partnership
as 2:2023cv00427
Plaintiff:
Valvoline Inc.
Defendant:
Superash Remainderman Limited Partnership
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335 Interpleader Action
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.
