Cases 21 - 30 of 33
Bridges #437651 v. Harry
as 1:2017cv00612
Petitioner:
Antonio Vallin Bridges #437651
Respondent:
Shirlee Harry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bridges #437651 v. Harry
as 1:2017cv00287
Petitioner:
Antonio Vallin Bridges #437651
Respondent:
Shirley Harry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
The Detroit International Bridge Company et al v. Steudle
as 1:2017cv00172
Plaintiff:
The Detroit International Bridge Company and The Canadian Transit Company
Defendant:
Kirk T. Steudle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Smith v. Chicago Bridge and Iron et al
as 1:2017cv00035
Plaintiff:
Harry Smith
Defendant:
Chicago Bridge and Iron and Bolt Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Bridges #437651 v. Barrett
as 1:2016cv01269
Petitioner:
Antonio Vallin Bridges #437651
Respondent:
Joseph Barrett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Web Innovations & Technology Services, Inc. v. Bridges to Digital Excellence et al
as 1:2016cv00977
Plaintiff:
Web Innovations & Technology Services, Inc.
Defendant:
Bridges to Digital Excellence , Douglas Chapman , Gilbert J. Urban and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Kelly #225090 v. Stoddard et al
as 1:2014cv01278
Plaintiff:
Opelton Kelly #225090
Defendant:
Cathleen Stoddard, Unknown Young, R. Allen and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv00267
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Harrison v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company et al
as 2:2011cv00462
Plaintiff:
Bruce Harrison
Defendant:
Wisconsin Central Limited and Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
Harrison v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company et al
as 1:2011cv01238
Plaintiff:
Bruce Harrison
Defendant:
Wisconsin Central Limited and Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
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.
