Cases 11 - 20 of 552
Baker v. C.R. Bard Inc et al
as 2:2024cv01548
Plaintiff:
Kelli Baker
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc and Davol Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Fikes v. Smith et al
as 3:2024cv00405
Plaintiff:
Joshua Fikes
Defendant:
Dustin Smith, Sheyenne Wilhelm and Mark Baker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2024cv00067
Interested Party:
SSA
Plaintiff:
Tracy Baker
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Baker et al v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01482
Plaintiff:
Connie Baker and Jimmy Baker
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Krzywkowski v. Mohr et al
as 2:2024cv00374
Plaintiff:
Grady Krzywkowski
Defendant:
Gary Mohr, Mike Davis, Warden Keith Foley and others
Interested Party:
State of Ohio
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Debose v. DUN & BRADSTREET HOLDINGS, INC.,
as 2:2024cv01113
Plaintiff:
Rashad Debose
Defendant:
DUN & BRADSTREET HOLDINGS, INC., and Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc.
Petitioner:
City of Columbus and Lara Baker-Morrish
Baker v. Indivior Inc. et al.
as 1:2024sf65035
Plaintiff:
Aubrey Baker
Defendant:
Indivior Inc., Indivior PLC, Indivior Solutions, Inc. and others
Baker v. County of Mahoning et al.
as 4:2024cv00530
Plaintiff:
Nathan L Baker and Nathan L. Baker
Defendant:
County of Mahoning, Sheriff Jerry Greene, Warden Kountz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Debose v. DUN & BRADSTREET HOLDINGS, INC.
as 2:2024cv01111
Plaintiff:
Rashad Debose
Defendant:
DUN & BRADSTREET HOLDINGS, INC.
Petitioner:
City of Columbus and Lara Baker-Morrish
Baker v. Line Financial, PBC
as 1:2024cv00116
Plaintiff:
Paula Baker
Defendant:
Line Financial, PBC doing business as Beem
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
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.
