Cases 11 - 20 of 34
Ashoor Rasho, et al v. John Baldwin, et al
as 19-1375
Plaintiff / Appellee:
OTIS ARRINGTON, PATRICE DANIELS, ASHOOR RASHO and others
Defendant / Appellant:
MELVIN HINTON and JOHN R. BALDWIN, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections
Ashoor Rasho, et al v. John Baldwin, et al
as 19-1145
Plaintiff / Appellee:
OTIS ARRINGTON, PATRICE DANIELS, ASHOOR RASHO and others
Defendant / Appellant:
JOHN R. BALDWIN, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections and MELVIN HINTON, Chief of Mental Health Services and Addiction Recovery Servicse for the Illinois Department of Corrections
USA v. Otis Hunter
as 18-2013
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
OTIS HUNTER, also known as "O"
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00263
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
USA v. Otis Elion
as 17-2012
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
OTIS R. ELION
USA v. Otis Syke
as 16-3525
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
OTIS SYKES
Joshua Howard, et al v. William Pollard, et al
as 15-8025
Petitioner:
JOSHUA HOWARD, WILLIAM E. WESO, JARVIS DUKE and others
Respondent:
WILLIAM POLLARD, SCOTT WALKER, EDWARD WALL and others
Garner et al v. Door & Window Guard Systems, Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv10553
Defendant:
Althea Kuller, PC Development Inc, Luis Vera and others
Plaintiff:
James Garner and Tina Turner
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv01209
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Kennedy v. Boyd Gaming Corporation et al
as 1:2015cv06440
Defendant:
Boyd Gaming Corporation and Otis Elevator Company
Plaintiff:
Robin Kennedy
Cause Of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case
Type:
Other Statutes
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.
