Cases 51 - 60 of 3,124
Cantel Medical LLC v. Hall
as 1:2024cv00133
Plaintiff:
Cantel Medical LLC
Defendant:
Roger Hall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)
Johnson v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv00261
Plaintiff:
Roger D. Johnson
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Larry Smith v. Wayne County, MI, et al
as 24-1030
Plaintiff:
LARRY SMITH
Defendant:
WAYNE COUNTY, MI, ROBERT J. DONALDSON, MONICA CHILDS and others
Rogers-Reed et al. v. Peterson et al.
as 1:2024cv00066
Plaintiff:
Keon A. Rogers-Reed and Cornelious L. Reed
Defendant:
Felisity Claudia Peterson, Rustler Sales & Service LLC, John and Jane Does and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Newell v. Chambers-Smith et al.
as 1:2024cv00042
Plaintiff:
Timothy Newell
Defendant:
Annette Chambers-Smith, Roger Wilson and Lisa Hoying
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Peacock et al v. C.R. Bard Inc et al
as 2:2024cv00023
Plaintiff:
Roger Peacock and Aime Peacock
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc and Davol Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Morris v. Damschroder et al
as 1:2024cv00003
Plaintiff:
Michelle Morris
Defendant:
Matt Damschroder, Margie Weaver, Abigail Rogers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Mattison v. Rowland et al
as 1:2023cv00089
Plaintiff:
Daniel Mattison, Noah Rashad Lyles, Lane Douglas Hills and others
Defendant:
Bucky Rowland, Josh Hyatt and Roger Maddox
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ashley Franklin v. Franklin County, KY, et al
as 23-6107
Plaintiff:
ASHLEY FRANKLIN
Defendant:
FRANKLIN COUNTY, KY, RICK ROGERS and WES CULBERTSON
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv01323
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
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.
