Cases 221 - 230 of 321
John Rogers, et al v. CIR
as 12-2686
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOHN E. ROGERS and FRANCES L. ROGERS
Respondent - Appellee:
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
John Rogers, et al v. CIR
as 12-2652
Petitioner - Appellant:
JOHN E. ROGERS and FRANCES L. ROGERS
Respondent - Appellee:
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
Lynch v. Hospira, Inc. et al
as 1:2012cv04522
Plaintiff:
Veronica Lynch
Defendant:
Hospira, Inc., The Employee Benefit Board of Review of Hospira, Inc., Pamela Hannon and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Rogers v. Razor Capital II, LLC et al
as 1:2012cv04022
Plaintiff:
James Rogers
Defendant:
Razor Capital II, LLC and Northland Group, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Ott v. Hospira, Inc. et al
as 1:2012cv03967
Plaintiff:
Manuel Ott
Defendant:
Hospira, Inc., The Employee Benefit Board of Review of Hospira, Inc., Pamela Hannon and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132
USA v. Demario Roger
as 12-2172
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DEMARIO ROGERS
Abbott Laboratories, Incorpora v. Roger Pyszkowski, et al
as 12-8025
Petitioner:
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED
Respondent:
ROGER PYSZKOWSKI, individually and as parent and next friend of C.P. and E.P., MINDY PYSZKOWSKI, individually and as parent and next friend of C.P. and E.P., E.P., a minor and others
Raluca Wybewy v. Morrison et al
as 1:2012cv03140
Plaintiff:
Emil Roger Wybewy and Raluca Wybewy
Defendant:
Mark Morrison, Vishvanath Karnade, John Rapisarda and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv00506
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Roger Shekar v. James Holderman
as 12-1837
Petitioner:
ROGER SHEKAR
Respondent:
JAMES F. HOLDERMAN
Party-in-Interest:
WILLIAM JOHNS, SUZANNE DAVIS, KATHERINE ANTHONY and others
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.
