Cases 1 - 10 of 18
Anderson et al v. Autoliv, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv11601
Plaintiff:
David Anderson, Robert Ballero Gonzalez, Deneen Brown and others
Defendant:
Anita Victory, Autoliv, Inc., Autoliv ASP, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv12925
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Rhoades et al v. United States of America Department of the Treasury
as 2:2021cv05212
Plaintiff:
Lawrence A Rhoades and Victoria L Rhoades
Defendant:
Department of the Treasury and United States of America Department of the Treasury
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7422
Maurice Rhoades v. Cty of Cleveland, OH, et al
as 21-3297
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF CLEVELAND, OH ADMINISTRATOR DAMON SCOTT, CITY OF CLEVELAND, OH, CITY OF CLEVELAND, OH CHIEF OF POLICE CALVIN WILLIAMS and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAURICE RHOADES
Billy Rhoads v. Osceola County, MI, et al
as 21-1163
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BILLY LEE RHOADS
Defendant / Appellee:
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, for 49th Judicial Circuit, MECOSTA COUNTY, MI, OSCEOLA COUNTY, MI JAIL and others
Billy Rhoads v. Osceola Cnty, MI, et al
as 21-1156
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BILLY LEE RHOADS
Defendant / Appellee:
OSCEOLA COUNTY, MI OFFICE, OSCEOLA COUNTY, MI JAIL and OSCEOLA COUNTY, MI
Billy Rhoads v. Mason Dieble, et al
as 21-1012
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BILLY LEE RHOADS
Defendant / Appellee:
MECOSTA COUNTY, MI JAIL and MASON DIEBLE, Deputy
Billy Rhoads v. Devon Dermyer
as 20-2111
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BILLY LEE RHOADS
Defendant / Appellee:
DEVON DERMYER, Deputy
Billy Rhoads v. Mecosta County, MI Jail
as 20-2113
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BILLY LEE RHOADS
Defendant / Appellee:
MECOSTA COUNTY, MI JAIL
Billy Rhoads v. Brain Hinkley
as 20-2110
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BILLY LEE RHOADS
Defendant / Appellee:
BRAIN HINKLEY, Deputy
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.
