Cases 1 - 7 of 7
GRIMES v. UNITED STATES et al
as 1:2022cv01802
Plaintiff:
ERIC ANTHONY GRIMES
Defendant:
UNITED STATES, DISTRICT COURT OF OHIO and DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
GRIMES v. WOOD COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS et al
as 1:2019cv00638
Defendant:
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICE, LLC, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, LUCAS COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and others
Plaintiff:
ERIC ANTHONY GRIMES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GRIMES v. WOOD COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS et al
as 1:2019cv00639
Defendant:
WOOD COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, LUCAS COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff:
ERIC ANTHONY GRIMES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DENINNO v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. et al
as 1:2015cv01923
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY DENINNO
Defendant:
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337
IN RE: DOMESTIC AIRLINE TRAVEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION
as 1:2015mc01404
Plaintiff:
JACK SNIADO, ARVIND SUNDAR, MICHAEL KROMAR and others
Defendant:
JOHN DOES 1-100, FREDERICK ISAACSON, AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC. and others
Special Master:
RICHARD A. LEVIE
In Re:
IN RE: DOMESTIC AIRLINE TRAVEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Undetermined:
INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
RICHARDSON et al v. AZKO NOBEL, INC.
as 1:2009cv02112
Defendant:
MITSUBISHI TANABE PHARMA CORPORATION, CHINOOK GLOBAL LIMITED, EVONIK DEGUSSA GMBH and others
Plaintiff:
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, KIRK CHAFFEE, STATE OF MINNESOTA and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. v. POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA STUDIES et al
as 1:2009cv01226
Plaintiff:
FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC.
Defendant:
POYNTER INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA STUDIES, TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
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.
