Cases 31 - 40 of 42
Martin Tavar v. Jeffrey Sharp, et al
as 12-2293
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARTIN PINEDA TAVAR
Defendant - Appellee:
JEFFREY L. SHARP, GARY SORGE, JEFFREY E. STRATMAN and others
Rockwell Automation Inc v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
as 2:2012cv00369
Plaintiff:
Rockwell Automation Inc
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America Inc, Chi Mei Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Wilder Chiropractic, Inc. v. Sharps Compliance, Inc.
as 3:2011cv00762
Plaintiff:
Wilder Chiropractic, Inc.
Defendant:
Sharps Compliance, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227
LG Display Company, Limited, et al v. Lisa Madigan
as 11-8017
Petitioner:
LG DISPLAY COMPANY, LIMITED, CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION, formerly known as CHI EMI OPTOELECTRONICS CORPORATION, EPSON IMAGING DEVICES CORPORATION and others
Respondent:
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois
USA v. Sharp Sidekick Cellular Telephone
as 3:2010mc00025
Plaintiff:
USA
Defendant:
Sharp Sidekick Cellular Telephone
Charles Sharp, Jr. v. USA
as 10-2890
Petitioner:
CHARLES T. SHARP, JR.
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
G. Neil Garret et al v. Sharps Compliance, Inc.
as 1:2010cv04030
Defendant:
Sharps Compliance, Inc. and John Does 1-10
Plaintiff:
G. Neil Garrett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Dr. G. Neil Garrett, DDS. PC et al v. Sharps Compliance
as 1:2010cv04048
Defendant:
Sharps Compliance
Plaintiff:
Dr. G. Neil Garrett, DDS. PC and John Does 1-10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Type:
Other Statutes
Motorola, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al
as 1:2009cv06610
Plaintiff:
Motorola, Inc.
Defendant:
AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc., Chi Mei Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
USA v. Leroy Sharp
as 09-2206
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
LEROY A. SHARP
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.
