Cases 151 - 160 of 59,671
Harper v. Davol Inc et al
as 2:2024cv02791
Plaintiff:
Betty Harper
Defendant:
Davol Inc and CR Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Blouir v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02780
Plaintiff:
David Blouir
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Smith v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02770
Plaintiff:
Charles A. Smith
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Conley v. Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc. Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation
as 2:2024cv02768
Plaintiff:
Kristen Conley
Defendant:
Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc. Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Strobl v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02795
Plaintiff:
Michelle Strobl
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Crum v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02767
Plaintiff:
Shalissa Crum
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Verrico v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02802
Plaintiff:
Richard Verrico
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Back v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02765
Plaintiff:
Carlton Charles Back
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Matson v. Davol Inc et al
as 2:2024cv02823
Plaintiff:
Neal Matson
Defendant:
Davol Inc and CR Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Putnam v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02779
Plaintiff:
Timothy Putnam
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
