Cases 31 - 40 of 94
Edmunds et al v. AbbVie Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv07671
Defendant:
AbbVie Products LLC, Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Trudy Edmunds and Frank L. Edmunds, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Wisnauski v. Kendall County et al
as 1:2018cv05530
Defendant:
Advanced Correctional Healthcare employee Jimmy McCorkle, Kendall County Deputy Garth Rasmussen, Advanced Correctional Healthcare employee David Miller, MD and others
Plaintiff:
Timothy Wisnauski
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Coppage et al v. Crane 1 Services Inc et al
as 2:2018cv00290
Defendant:
Edmund Woodward, Brady Fincher and Crane 1 Services Inc
Plaintiff:
Sharon Coppage and Robert Coppage
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
USA v. Edmund Brixen
as 18-1636
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
EDMUND J. BRIXEN
SMITH v. KRUEGER, et al
as 2:2018cv00071
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA and J. E. KRUEGER
Petitioner:
EDMUND HUDMOND SMITH, IV
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
as 1:2017cv08189
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", Christine Fischer, McNally Gill and others
Plaintiff:
Luxottica Group S.p.A. and Oakley, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
In the matter of Edmund Long
as 1:2017cv06346
Edmund Hodges v. USA
as 17-1869
Petitioner - Appellant:
EDMUND HODGES
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Singleton v. Home Depot Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv02794
Plaintiff:
Avery Singleton
Defendant:
Home Depot Inc., Alejandro Rojas, Saul Martinez and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 17-1596
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
