Cases 101 - 110 of 1,603,997
Carlisle v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02619
Plaintiff:
Brenda Carlisle
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Dailey v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02622
Plaintiff:
Johnnie Dailey
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Bartlett v. Davol Inc et al
as 2:2024cv02623
Plaintiff:
Glenn Bartlett
Defendant:
Davol Inc and CR Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Bland v. Davol Inc et al
as 2:2024cv02625
Plaintiff:
Eugene Bland
Defendant:
Davol Inc and CR Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Brooks v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02626
Plaintiff:
Joyce A. Brooks
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Baichan et al v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02628
Plaintiff:
Rashmie P. Baichan and Deonarine Baichan
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Curtis v. Walmart Inc
as 5:2024cv00506
Plaintiff:
Debbie Curtis
Defendant:
Walmart Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
RAZOR v. PUWAR et al
as 2:2024cv02149
Defendant:
LEETABEN RATHOD, CHETAN PUWAR and LEETA RATHOD
Plaintiff:
TICHINA RAZOR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
HOUCK et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 2:2024cv02151
Plaintiff:
MARK HOUCK and RYAN-MARIE HOUCK
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MICHAEL ROGERS, JUAN BARRIOS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action
Courtney v. Financial Business and Consume Solutions Inc.
as 2:2024cv02153
Plaintiff:
Timothy Courtney
Defendant:
Financial Business and Consume Solutions Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
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.
