Cases 11 - 20 of 31
HICKS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP et al
as 2:2017cv13187
Plaintiff:
GARY HICKS
Defendant:
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP and ASTRAZENECA LP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hicks v. Vortex Marine Construction, Inc.
as 6:2016cv01226
Plaintiff:
Gary Hicks
Defendant:
Vortex Marine Construction, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Petkovich v. The City of Montgomery, Alabama et al
as 2:2014cv00923
Plaintiff:
Karl Petkovich
Defendant:
The City of Montgomery, Alabama , Jamie Reynolds and Gary Hicks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Balboa v. Hopkinsville Police Department et al
as 5:2014cv00026
Plaintiff:
Roberto Balboa
Defendant:
Hopkinsville Police Department and Gary Hicks
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hicks v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U S A Inc et al
as 6:2013cv01999
Plaintiff:
Gary Hicks
Defendant:
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U S A Inc, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Hicks v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U S A Inc et al
as LAW/6:13-cv-01999
Plaintiff:
Gary Hicks
Defendant:
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U S A Inc, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd and others
Morrow et al v. Clarkston, City of
as 2:2012cv00505
Plaintiff:
Connie Morrow , George Morrow , Gary Hicks and others
Defendant:
Clarkston, City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GARY HICKS v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
as 2:2011cv66742
Plaintiff:
GARY HICKS
Defendant:
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hicks v. BNSF Railway Company
as 4:2011cv00534
Plaintiff:
Gary Hicks
Defendant:
BNSF Railway Company
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
Reedy, et al v. Werholtz
as 11-3040
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL E. REEDY, TODD DEAL, GRANT NIXON and others
Defendant - Appellee:
ROGER WERHOLTZ, Secretary of Corrections, Kansas Department of Corrections
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.
