Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Mack v. Jewell et al
as 1:2013cv00187
Plaintiff:
Richard S. Mack
Defendant:
Nick Jewell and Two Unknown Warren County Sheriff Deputies
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Mackes et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2012dp22646
Plaintiff:
Terry L Mackes and Deborah S Mackes
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , DePuy, Inc. , DePuy International Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
David Tullis v. UMB Bank, N.A., et al
as 12-3032
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID H. TULLIS and MICHAEL S. MACK
Defendant - Appellee:
UMB BANK, N.A., Employee Benefits Division and JOHN DOE, 1 - 10
David Tullis, et al v. UMB Bank, N.A., et al
as 09-4370
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID H. TULLIS and MICHAEL S. MACK
Defendant - Appellee:
UMB BANK, N.A., Employee Benefits Division and JOHN DOE, 1 - 10
Grange Mutual Cslty, et al v. Mack, et al
as 07-5387
Plaintiff:
GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, et al.
Plaintiff - Appellee:
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION and others
Defendant - Appellant:
GREG S. MACK
Defendant:
MARK L. L'HOMMEDIEU, et al
Grange Mutual Cslty, et al v. Mack, et al
as 07-5097
Plaintiff - Appellee:
GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, GRANGE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY and TRUSTGARD INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff:
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al
Defendant - Appellant:
GREG S. MACK
Defendant:
MARK L. L'HOMMEDIEU, et al
Tullis, et al v. UMB Bank
as 06-4632
Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
DAVID H. TULLIS and MICHAEL S. MACK
Amicus Curiae:
SECRETARY OF LABOR, Elaine L. Chaop
Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
UMB BANK, N.A., Employees Benefits Division
Tullis, et al v. UMB Bank
as 06-4633
Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
DAVID H. TULLIS and MICHAEL S. MACK
Amicus Curiae:
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
UMB BANK, N.A., Employees Benefits Division
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.
