Cases 11 - 20 of 139
Chapman v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv01834
Plaintiff:
Kristie S Chapman
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv01022
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00991
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Chapman v. Foley
as 4:2023cv00735
Petitioner:
Chris Chapman
Respondent:
Warden Keith Foley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Chapman v. Davol, Inc et al
as 2:2023cv00638
Plaintiff:
Betty Chapman
Defendant:
Davol, Inc and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
McCracken v. Township of Springfield, Summit County, Ohio et al
as 5:2022cv01413
Plaintiff:
Jeremy McCracken
Defendant:
Township of Springfield, Summit County, Ohio, Springfield Township Police Department, Kellie Chapman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights
Chapman v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv03020
Plaintiff:
Bradley Chapman
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Chapman v. Foley
as 4:2022cv01253
Petitioner:
Chris Chapman
Respondent:
Warden Keith Foley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Glaze v. Morgan et al
as 1:2022cv00379
Defendant:
Jane Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3 and others
Plaintiff:
Cedric A. Glaze
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Chapman v. Franklin County Sheriff et al
as 2:2022cv02524
Plaintiff:
Tasha Chapman
Defendant:
Franklin County Sheriff, Franklin County Correctional Center, II and John and Jane Doe(s)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
