Cases 41 - 50 of 85
Hodge et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2014cv18918
Plaintiff:
Rita Fay Hodge and Donald Lee Hodge
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Arnold et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al
as 2:2014cv16251
Plaintiff:
Sharon Arnold and Donald Lee Arnold
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corporation, Johnson & Johnson , Ethicon, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hinton v. O'Conner, et al.
as 3:2014cv00253
Plaintiff:
Donald Lee Hinton
Defendant:
O'Conner, Yates, Booth and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Kelley et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
as 2:2013cv24054
Plaintiff:
Sherri Denise Kelley and Donald Lee Butler
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hutto et al v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et al
as 1:2013cv00109
Plaintiff:
Donald Lee Hutto and Sandra Seay Hutto
Defendant:
Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation , A.W. Chesterton, Inc. and others
Cross_claimant:
A.W. Chesterton, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Donald Hinton v. Harold Clarke
as 13-6443
Petitioner - Appellant:
DONALD LEE HINTON
Respondent - Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Dept. of Corrections
Taylor v. Plumley
as 5:2013cv00016
Petitioner:
Donald Lee Taylor
Respondent:
Marvin Plumley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lee v. Willet
as 1:2013cv00183
Plaintiff:
Donald Lee
Defendant:
James C. Willet
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Donald Rice v. Ms. Danieley
as 12-7763
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DONALD LEE RICE
Defendant - Appellee:
MS. DANIELEY, BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE, J. POLAND, Sergeant and others
Donald Rice v. Beverly Perdue
as 12-7353
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DONALD LEE RICE
Defendant - Appellee:
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE, ALLEN W. KELLER, JR., ROBERT C. LEWIS and others
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.
