Cases 11 - 20 of 39
Shannon v. Luttrell et al
as 2:2017cv02213
Plaintiff:
Wayne Shannon
Defendant:
Mark H. Luttrell, William J. Gupton, Jr., William Spears and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cage v. Green et al
as 3:2017cv00513
Plaintiff:
Quinton A. Cage
Defendant:
(f/n/u) Green, James M. Holloway, Tony Parker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Yale Balcar v. Aaron Smith, et al
as 17-5159
Plaintiff - Appellant:
YALE LARRY BALCAR
Defendant - Appellee:
AARON SMITH, Kentucky State Reformatory, Warden and ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE, (KSR)
Abraham Yaacov v. Gary Mohr, et al
as 16-4361
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ABRAHAM YAACOV
Defendant - Appellee:
GARY C. MOHR, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, MIKE DAVIS, Religious Services Administrator, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden, Richland Correctional Institution and others
Robert Martin v. Mohr, et al
as 16-4320
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT MARTIN
Defendant - Appellee:
MOHR, Director, Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE, ET. AL., Contractees for Third Party Inmates
Johnson v. Shelby County Jail et al
as 2:2016cv02567
Plaintiff:
Develle Johnson
Defendant:
Shelby County Jail and Aramark Food Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Balcar v. Smith et al
as 3:2016cv00428
Plaintiff:
Yale Larry Balcar
Defendant:
Aaron Smith and Aramark Food Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Erby v. Luttrell et al
as 2:2016cv03020
Plaintiff:
Fred Erby
Defendant:
Mark H. Luttrell, William J. Gupton, Jr., William Spears and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Spates #207461 v. Aramark Food Service
as 2:2016cv00092
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Glen Spates #207461
Defendant:
Aramark Food Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Myers v. Aramark Food Services et al
as 2:2015cv02824
Plaintiff:
Mario Marquette Myers
Defendant:
Aramark Food Services and Shirley Hayslett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
