Cases 11 - 20 of 22
Reilly v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2013cv25406
Plaintiff:
Donna Reilly
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon, LLC and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Reilly et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc.
as 2:2013cv15149
Plaintiff:
Kim Reilly and Joseph Reilly
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Reilly et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2013cv10726
Plaintiff:
Margaret Reilly and Edward Reilly
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon, LLC and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Reilly et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation
as 2:2013cv01047
Plaintiff:
Kathleen B. Reilly and Vaughn E. Reilly
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Reilly v. Endo Pharmaceuticals et al
as 2:2012cv04619
Plaintiff:
Christina Reilly
Defendant:
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., American Medical Systems, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cross v. Boston Scientific Corporation
as 2:2012cv01748
Plaintiff:
Gail Reilly Cross
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Andrews v. Cross et al
as 5:2010cv00113
Plaintiff:
Patrick Franklin Andrews
Defendant:
James N. Cross, Roy C. Cheatham, Thomas E. Bergami and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Washington v. Reilly et al
as 2:2009cv00074
Petitioner:
David L. Washington
Respondent:
Edward Reilly, Jr. and James N. Cross
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Heatley v. Driver et al
as 5:2008cv00125
Petitioner:
Andre L. Heatley
Respondent:
Joe Driver and Edward F. Reilly, Jr.
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Franklin v. Reilly et al
as 1:2008cv00082
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Franklin
Defendant:
Edward F. Reilly and Kuma J. DeBoo
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
