Cases 1 - 10 of 18
Shank v. Smith
as 1:2024cv00745
Plaintiff:
Patrick J. Shank
Defendant:
Shelby W. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
Smith v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al
as 3:2021cv01421
Plaintiff:
Theodore Smith, III and Theodore W. Smith, III
Defendant:
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Warden May, RWO Walters and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. USA
as 1:2018cv01860
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
James W. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Smith, III v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction et al
as 4:2018cv01493
Defendant:
Deputy Warden of Special Operations Bebee, Doctor Doe, Food Service Supervisor Doe and others
Plaintiff:
Theodore W. Smith, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rover Pipeline LLC v. Bartter et al
as 5:2017cv00239
Defendant:
Bartter, Dominion Resources, Inc., NiSource Corporate Services Company and others
Plaintiff:
Rover Pipeline LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 717
Smith v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
as 1:2016dp20165
Plaintiff:
Thomas W Smith
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Smith v. USA
as 1:2016cv01396
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Steven W. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Smith v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2016dp20079
Plaintiff:
Thomas W Smith
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , DePuy Inc. , DePuy International Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Royal Sebring, LLC, et al v Village of Sebring, et al
as 4:2013cv02759
Plaintiff:
Royal Sebring, LLC and Jerome Edward McHugh
Defendant:
Village of Sebring, James Canell, John W. Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Smith v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
as 1:2013dp21162
Plaintiff:
Thomas W Smith
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
