Cases 21 - 30 of 33
Ohlson v. The Cadle Company, Inc. et al
as 2:2004cv03418
Defendant:
Bobby D. Associates, Daniel C. Cadle, John Doe and others
Counter Claimant:
John Doe, John Doe, John Doe and others
Counter Defendant:
Paul Ohlson and Paul Ohlson
Plaintiff:
Paul Ohlson
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
The Cadle Company II, Inc. v. Gasbusters Production I Limite
as 10-5060
Appellant:
THE CADLE COMPANY II, INC.
Appellee:
GASBUSTERS PRODUCTION I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv11972
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2009cv02255
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Bray v. The Cadle Company et al
as 4:2009cv00663
Plaintiff:
Roy H Bray
Defendant:
The Cadle Company and Windsearch, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Hicks v. Cadle Company et al
as 1:2009mc00007
Plaintiff:
Kerry R. Hicks
Defendant:
Cadle Company, Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd., William E. Shaulis and others
The Cadle Company II, Inc. v. Fashion Shop of Kentucky, Inc., et al
as 08-5633
Debtor:
In re: FASHION SHOP OF KENTUCKY, INC.
Appellant:
THE CADLE COMPANY II, INC.
Appellee:
FASHION SHOP OF KENTUCKY, INC. and RETAIL CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2008cv10388
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Diversity
The Cadle Company II, Incorporated v. Fashion Shop of Kentucky, Incorporated
as 3:2007mc00023
Appellant:
The Cadle Company II, Incorporated and The Cadle Company II, Incorporated
Appellee:
Fashion Shop of Kentucky, Incorporated
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv12247
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal
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.
