Cases 11 - 20 of 429,997
ONEIL v. ADKISON
as 3:2024cv00448
Plaintiff:
ONEIL
Defendant:
MICHAEL A ADKISON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LAFOUNTAIN v. ADKINSON
as 3:2024cv00449
Plaintiff:
NELLIE LAFOUNTAIN
Defendant:
MICHAEL A ADKINSON, JR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BEGGS LLC v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
as 4:2024cv00373
Plaintiff:
ASHLEY P. BEGGS LLC
Defendant:
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 635 Breach of Insurance Contract
BEGGS, LLC v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
as 4:2024cv00374
Plaintiff:
ASHLEY P BEGGS, LLC
Defendant:
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 635 Breach of Insurance Contract
RESTORE ROBOTICS REPAIRS LLC v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL INC
as 3:2024cv00444
Plaintiff:
RESTORE ROBOTICS REPAIRS LLC
Defendant:
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00375
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00377
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00443
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
SURDAKOWSKI v. DIXON et al
as 5:2024cv00216
Defendant:
E JONES, C M CACCAMIS, T MILLS and others
Plaintiff:
ROBERT SURDAKOWSKI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
v. GULF PILING COMPANY, LLC et al
as 5:2024cv00217
Defendant:
GULF PILING COMPANY, LLC and MICHAEL SMITH
Plaintiff:
DALTON WEEKS
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 (a) Fair Labor Standards 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.
