Cases 1 - 10 of 21
Harris v. Redwood et al
as 1:2024cv00306
Plaintiff:
James Harris
Defendant:
Warden Donald Redwood, Deputy Warden Cynthia Davis, Deputy Warden Nicole Joseph and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Maye-Smallwood v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv04183
Plaintiff:
Leslie Maye-Smallwood
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C. R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Maye v. Eiden et al
as 2:2022cv04249
Plaintiff:
Ricco L Maye
Defendant:
Craig Eiden, Masser, Kevin Bloom and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mayes v. Warden, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
as 3:2022cv00313
Petitioner:
Derrick E. Mayes
Respondent:
Warden, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Terry v. Garnett et al
as 3:2021cv00174
Defendant:
Tom Lynch, Curtis Jones, Officer Strickler and others
Plaintiff:
Camilia T Terry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Mayes v. C.R. Bard, Inc et al
as 2:2019cv04357
Defendant:
Davol Inc and C.R. Bard, Inc
Plaintiff:
Martha Mayes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Lopez et al v. Kingsridge II, Inc. et al
as 3:2019cv00301
Defendant:
Ridgeking, LLC, Kingsridge II, Inc. and Kingsridge Sub, LLC
Plaintiff:
Rosie Jones, Ursula Mayes and Arianny Celeste Lopez
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Mayes et al v. ICON Entertainment Group, Inc.
as 2:2019cv01364
Defendant:
ICON Entertainment Group, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Ursula Mayes and Eva Pepaj
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Mayes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2018cv01798
Defendant:
Davol Inc. and C. R. Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Debbie Mayes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Banx et al v. The Princeton Club, LLC
as 2:2018cv01389
Plaintiff:
Paola Canas, Ursula Mayes, John Coulter and others
Defendant:
The Princeton Club, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
