Cases 11 - 20 of 21
Tate v. Memphis City Police Department et al
as 2:2016cv02719
Plaintiff:
Darryle Edward Tate
Defendant:
Memphis City Police Department, . Bridgeforth, Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv01315
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Roney v. Skechers, U.S.A., Inc. et al
as 3:2015cv00482
Plaintiff:
Kimberly Roney
Defendant:
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. , Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2014cv02309
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Roney
as 2:2013mc51007
Plaintiff:
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency
Defendant:
Timothy D. Roney
Roney v. Thurman et al
as 5:2012cv00236
Plaintiff:
Mark Roney
Defendant:
Edward R. Thurman and Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Roney v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2011dp20978
Plaintiff:
Reggie B. Roney
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , Depuy Inc., DePuy International Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Roney et al v. Ballard Forest Transportation, Inc. et al
as 2:2011cv10817
Plaintiff:
Daniel Roney and Dover Services, Inc.
Defendant:
Ballard Forest Transportation, Inc. and Ace Westchester Specialty Insurance
Cause Of Action: 49 U.S.C. § 81
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2009cv14944
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
U.S.A., et al v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
as 08-6296
Plaintiff - Appellant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff:
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Intervenor - Appellee:
FAYETTE COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, WALTER E. GAFFIELD, JOHN TUCKER and others
Defendant - Appellee:
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT
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.
