Cases 21 - 28 of 28
INDIANA CARPENTERS PENSION FUND et al v. JONES & ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES et al
as 1:2013cv00579
Plaintiff:
INDIANA CARPENTERS PENSION FUND, INDIANA/KENTUCKY/OHIO CARPENTERS WELFARE FUND, INDIANA/KENTUCKY/OHIO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS and others
Defendant:
WILLIAM SCOTT JONES and JONES & ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
CITIZENS FOR APPROPRIATE RURAL ROADS, INC. et al v. LAHOOD et al
as 1:2011cv01031
Plaintiff:
ANN M. BAAS, LYNNE BERGH, JANICE ANN BOYD and others
Defendant:
MICHAEL B. CLINE, RAY LAHOOD, VICTOR MENDEZ and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
BECK v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 2:2011cv00152
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM SCOTT BECK
Defendant:
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv03427
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv01167
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Posey v. Noland et al
as 1:2009cv03477
Plaintiff:
Carol Posey
Defendant:
William Scott Noland, William Scott Noland, Swift Leasing Co. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Samuels et al v. Shah et al
as 1:2009cv01138
Plaintiff:
Richard Z Samuels, William Scott Meyer and James Edward Hatchett
Defendant:
. Shah, . Synthia, Tazewell County Supervisor and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Carson et al v. Flexible Foam Products, Inc.
as 3:2008cv00095
Plaintiff:
William Scott Carson, William Scott Carson, Estate of Earle Nathan Doyle and others
Defendant:
Flexible Foam Products, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145 Patent Infringement
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.
