Cases 11 - 20 of 39
Wise v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
as 1:2018cv11920
Defendant:
Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
Plaintiff:
Donald Wise
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Wise v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
as 1:2018cv11641
Defendant:
Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
Plaintiff:
Donald Wise
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Omran v. Laplante, et al
as 16-1876
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MOHAMMED ABDALLAH OMRAN
Defendant - Appellee:
JOSEPH N. LAPLANTE, Federal Judge, US District Court, in both his individual and official capacities, MICHAEL J. GUNNISON, Assistant US Attorney, THOMAS V. TREVETHICK, Member of NH Attorney Discipline Office, in both his individual and official capacities and others
EDSON v. LEPAGE et al
as 1:2016cv00079
Plaintiff:
ARLENE EDSON
Defendant:
PAUL L LEPAGE , RIVERVIEW PSYCHIATRIC CENTER , MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Omran v. Gunnison, et al
as 16-1059
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MOHAMMED ABDALLAH OMRAN
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL J. GUNNISON, Assistant US Attorney, JOSEPH N. LAPLANTE, Federal Judge, US District Court, in both his individual and official capacities, THOMAS V. TREVETHICK, Member of NH Attorney Discipline Office, in both his individual and official capacities and others
Omran v. Laplante et al
as 1:2016fp00005
Defendant:
Janet Ackerman, Assistant US Attorney, Stephen Bartlett and others
Plaintiff:
Mohammed Abdallah Omran
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Omran v. Assistant US Attorney et al
as 1:2015fp00406
Defendant:
Janet Ackerman, Assistant US Attorney, Stephen Bartlett and others
Plaintiff:
Mohammed Abdallah Omran
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Enos v. Whelan, M.D. et al
as 1:2015cv12983
Plaintiff:
Christina M. Enos
Defendant:
Janet R. Whelan, M.D. , Amanda J. Haddad, R.N. and Janel C. Wise, R.N.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
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.
