Cases 1 - 10 of 28
Woodhouse et al v. Exactech Inc et al
as 1:2024cv00723
Plaintiff:
Gregory Woodhouse and Sherry Sutherlin Woodhouse
Defendant:
Exactech Inc, Exactech US Inc, TPG Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Woodhouse v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
as 23-7973
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BENJAMIN WOODHOUSE, ESQ.
Defendant / Appellee:
META PLATFORMS, INC., ALPHABET INC., GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP and others
Woodhouse v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv07000
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Woodhouse, Esq.
Defendant:
Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc., Nike Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ra Fed. Question: Racketeering (RICO) Act
Woodhouse v. Saul
as 1:2019cv05921
Plaintiff:
Malik Woodhosue and Malik Woodhouse
Defendant:
Andrew M. Saul
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv04731
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Woodhouse v. Colon
as 3:2016cv00888
Plaintiff:
Lamar Woodhouse
Defendant:
Colon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Woodhouse v. Pellicone et al
as 3:2016cv00726
Plaintiff:
Lamar Woodhouse
Defendant:
G. Pellicone, L. Vallin and Pesino
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Smith et al v. The City Of New York , et al
as 1:2016cv00845
Defendant:
P.O. Christopher Bruno, Daniel Byrne, Ignazio Conca and others
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Smith and Rylawn Walker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Smith et al v. The City Of New York , et al
as 1:2015cv05030
Defendant:
The City Of New York , , Robert Woodhouse and John Doe 1-15
Plaintiff:
Kenneth Smith and Rylawn Walker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Woodhouse v. New Haven Police Department et al
as 3:2015cv00595
Plaintiff:
Lamar Woodhouse
Defendant:
New Haven Police Department, John Doe and K-9-Police Dog
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
