Cases 101 - 110 of 645
Riley v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv02888
Plaintiff:
Harold Riley
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Riley v. Burgess
as 2:2021cv11254
Respondent:
Michael Burgess
Petitioner:
Laren Riley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
D. Savage, LLC et al v. City of Detroit et al
as 2:2021cv11242
Defendant:
Kevin A. Briggs, Matthew J. Bray, Ronald C. Hopp and others
Plaintiff:
Travis Davison, Cotea Jones, Curtis Williams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Riley v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv02649
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
William Riley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. v. Morgan et al
as 1:2021cv00407
Defendant:
Terry Morgan and Peter Sung Ohr
Plaintiff:
Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv00314
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2021cv00057
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Nelson v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv01320
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
JAY RILEY NELSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Anthony Novak v. City of Parma, OH, et al
as 21-3290
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ANTHONY NOVAK
Defendant / Appellee:
KEVIN RILEY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as an Employee of the City of Parma, OH, THOMAS CONNOR, Individually and in his Official Capacity as an Employee of the City of Parma, OH and CITY OF PARMA, OH
Defendant:
JOHN DOE, Individually and as a member of the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv00642
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
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.
