Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Barlow v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Company
as 3:2022cv01736
Plaintiff:
George Barlow
Defendant:
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
United Specialty Insurance Company v. JB Trans et al
as 4:2021cv02092
Plaintiff:
United Specialty Insurance Company
Defendant:
JB Trans, Jaswant Singh, James R. Wolfe and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335
Kozak et al v. Klikuszewski et al
as 4:2021cv01609
Plaintiff:
Patricia M. Kozak and Brian D. Kozak
Defendant:
Edward J. Klikuszewski and Barlow Trucking Lines
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00586
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Barlow v. Service Employees International Union, Local 668 et al
as 1:2020cv02459
Defendant:
Michael Newsome, Service Employees International Union, Local 668 and Brian T. Lyman
Plaintiff:
Bradley Barlow
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Goodwin v. Hawk-Sawyer et al
as 1:2020cv00606
Defendant:
Darrin Howard, DHO Bittenbender, Warden H Quay and others
Plaintiff:
Joal William Goodwin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Barlow v. Ebbert et al
as 1:2018cv01963
Defendant:
Officer/Counselor Tharp, Warden David J. Ebbert and SIS Officer Buebendorf
Plaintiff:
Camden Barlow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Barlow v. Ebbert
as 1:2018cv01671
Petitioner:
Camden Barlow
Respondent:
Warden David J. Ebbert
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Barlow, et al v. Ebbert et al
as 1:2018cv00716
Plaintiff:
Camden Barlow, Christopher Alvarez, Justin Haynes and others
Defendant:
David J. Ebbert, Buebendorf and Tharp
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Rambert v. Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2015cv00320
Plaintiff:
Eric X. Rambert
Defendant:
Department of Corrections, John E. Wetzel, Andrew Filkosky and others
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.
