Cases 121 - 130 of 1,598
Potter v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv04520
Plaintiff:
Edward Eugene Potter
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Ferrell v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv04422
Plaintiff:
Eugene Ferrell
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Austin v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv04084
Plaintiff:
Rocky Eugene Austin
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Knowles v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv04016
Plaintiff:
Wesley Eugene Knowles
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Timothy England v. USA
as 22-5996
Petitioner / Appellant:
TIMOTHY EUGENE ENGLAND
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Zackery v. Harmon et al
as 1:2022cv00152
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Eugene Zackery
Defendant:
Stephen Harmon, Warren County Regional Jail and Southern Health Partners, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Estate of Nicholas Eugene McMain v. City of Hartford, KY, et al
as 22-5982
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ESTATE OF NICHOLAS EUGENE MCMAIN, by and through Angie Bullock, Administratrix of the Estate of Nicholas Eugene McMain
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF HARTFORD, KY, JASON GEARY, Individually, CHAD C. WOOD, Individually and others
Joseph-Allen Davis v. Yunus Abass, et al
as 22-3903
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOSEPH-ALLEN DAVIS
Defendant / Appellee:
YUNUS ADEWALE ABASS, in their private and official capacity, EUGENE MICHAEL CAZANTZES, in their private and official capacity, JEREMY JOHN FOLTZ, in their private and official capacity and others
Troxell v. Jordan
as 6:2022cv00186
Petitioner:
Destil Eugene Troxell
Respondent:
Warden Scott Jordan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
