Cases 1 - 10 of 89
Douglas Brust, et al v. Opensided MRI of St. Louis, LLC, et al
as 23-8003
Respondent:
Douglas Phillip Brust, D.C., P.C. and Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated
Petitioner:
Opensided MRI of St. Louis, LLC, Opensided MRI of St. Louis II, LLC and Matthew Ruyle
Not Classified By Court:
Paul Eugene Schwetz and John Does 1-10
David Hodges v. Minnesota Dept. Corrections, et al
as 21-3891
Plaintiff / Appellant:
David Laurence Hodges
Defendant / Appellee:
State of Minnesota Department of Corrections, Ashlee Berts, Derek Gunderson and others
Defendant:
James M. Olson, RN, Centurion of Minnesota, John Doe, 1-2 (whose true names are unknown) and others
Alex Nelson, et al v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al
as 21-3740
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Alex Nelson and Iris Nelson
Defendant / Appellant:
City of St. Louis, Missouri, Gerald Leyshock, COI, in his individual and official capacities, Scott Boyher, LT., in his individual and official capacities and others
Defendant:
John Does 1-5, in their individual and official capacities, Charlene Deeken and John Does, 1-3
Abdur-Rashid Muhammad v. Scott Frakes, et al
as 21-3679
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Abdur-Rashid Muhammad
Defendant / Appellee:
Scott Frakes, (Current Director) - In thier Individual Capacity, Michelle Wilhelm, (Current Warden) - In their Individual Capacity, The State of Nebraska and others
Shane Waliezer v. Brad Howell, et al
as 21-3539
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Shane D. Waliezer
Defendant / Appellee:
Brad Howell, Sheriff Codington County; professionally and individually, Officer John Doe, #1 Deputy Sheriff Codington County; professionally and individually and Officer John Doe, #2 Deputy Sheriff Codington County; professionally and individually
Emily Davis v. Gerald Leyshock, et al
as 21-3526
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Emily Davis
Defendant:
City of St. Louis, Missouri, John Does 1-5, in their individual and official capacities and Charlene Deeken
Defendant / Appellant:
Gerald Leyshock, COL., in his individual and official capacities, Scott Boyher, LT., in his individual and official capacities, Timothy Sachs, LT., in his individual and official capacities and others
James Tanner v. Kurt Ziegenhorn, et al
as 21-3462
Plaintiff / Appellant:
James Andrew Tanner
Defendant / Appellee:
Kurt Ziegenhorn, in his individual capacity, Bill Bryant, Colonel, in his official capacity as head of the Arkansas State Police, an agency of the State of Arkansas and William Sadler, "Bill", in his individual capacity
Defendant:
John Doe, 1-5, individually and in their official capacity, Mike Kennedy, Individually and Elizabeth Chapman, Individually
Dillan Newbold v. Gerald Leyshock, et al
as 21-3108
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Dillan Newbold
Defendant:
City of St. Louis, Missouri, John Does 1-5, in their individual and official capacities, Terrence Ruffin and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Gerald Leyshock, COL., in his individual an official capacities, Scott Boyher, LT., in his individual and official capacities, Timothy Sachs, T., in his individual and official capacities and others
Piper Partridge, et al v. City of Benton, Arkansas, et al
as 21-3001
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Piper Partridge, Individually as mother and next of kin to Keagan Schweikle and as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Keagan Schweikle and Dominic Schweikle, Individually as father and next of kin to Keagan Schweikle
Defendant / Appellee:
City of Benton, Arkansas, Kyle Ellison, Individually and as Employee of City of Benton, Arkansas, Kirk Lane, Individually and as Employee of City of Benton, Arkansas and others
Joseph Favors v. Samantha Ensz, et al
as 21-2826
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Joseph Anthony Favors
Defendant / Appellee:
Samantha Ensz, Individual/official capacities and Therapist of CPS, Michael Hettig, Individual/official capacities and as Clinical Supervisor of CPS, Nancy Johnston, Individual/official capacities and as Executive Director of MSOP/CPS 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.
