Cases 11 - 20 of 25
Marjan Rroku v. David Cole, et al
as 16-31074
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARJAN RROKU
Defendant - Appellee:
DAVID C. COLE, HENRY WOODS and JOHN HARTNETT, Assistant Field Officer Director on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement
WOOD et al v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. et al
as 1:2015cv05426
Plaintiff:
HENRY WOOD and NANCY WOOD
Defendant:
DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ELLIS et al v. HOLY COMFORTER SAINT CYPRIAN COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP
as 1:2015cv00842
Plaintiff:
WILLIE LEE ELLIS , HENRY WOOD , THOMAS MOORE and others
Defendant:
HOLY COMFORTER SAINT CYPRIAN COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Woods v. State of South Carolina
as 4:2015cv00776
Petitioner:
Henry Woods and Warden Lee Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rroku v. Cole et al
as 1:2015cv00294
Plaintiff:
Marjan Rroku
Defendant:
David C Cole, Henry Woods and John Hartnett
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv01663
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Henry Woods v. Michael Bowersox
as 13-1932
Petitioner - Appellant:
Henry Woods
Respondent - Appellee:
Michael Bowersox
Wood v. Lucar Corporation, LLC et al
as 1:2010cv21322
Plaintiff:
Henry Wood
Defendant:
Lucar Corporation, LLC and Aircraft Trust & Financing Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Woods v. Bowersox
as 4:2010cv00541
Petitioner:
Henry Woods
Respondent:
Michael Bowersox
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WOODS v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. et al
as 2:2009cv85342
Plaintiff:
FLOYD HENRY WOODS, FLOYD HENRY WOODS and FLOYD HENRY WOODS
Defendant:
AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, CERTAINTEED CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
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.
