Cases 31 - 40 of 73
Holmes v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al
as 2:2018cv13996
Plaintiff:
David Holmes
Defendant:
BP America Production Company and BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333
Guinta et al v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
as 1:2018cv11774
Plaintiff:
David Holmes, Frank Hollen, Ezra Hester and others
Defendant:
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1605 A
Baker v. Prescott, City of et al
as 3:2018cv08324
Defendant:
Prescott, City of, Harvey Skoog, Jodi Rooney and others
Plaintiff:
Tracy Baker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Driscoll v. Chemung County
as 18-2361
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Ramonn S. Driscoll
Defendant - Appellee:
Chemung County, Ryan Card, Sheriff Christopher Moss and others
Holmes et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2018cv01697
Plaintiff:
David Holmes and Judith Holmes
Defendant:
3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Perry et al v. Brassell et al
as 6:2018cv00062
Defendant:
Shane Brassell, Rick Brooks, Zach Brown and others
Plaintiff:
Leletia Smith O'Malley, Steve Perry and Dr. Regina Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
QUINTANA v. HOLMES
as 2:2018cv02248
Plaintiff:
ODILCIA QUINTANA
Defendant:
DAVID HOLMES, Jr. , "JOHN DOE" 1-5 and "XYZ CORP" 1-5
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Tenemille v. Town Of Ramapo et al
as 7:2018cv00724
Plaintiff:
Ernst Theodore Tenemille
Defendant:
Town Of Ramapo , Christopher St. Lawrence, Patrick Withers and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Holmes et al v. Smith & Nephew , Inc.
as 1:2017cv03549
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew , Inc.
Plaintiff:
Janice Holmes and David Holmes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Driscoll v. Chemung County et al
as 6:2017cv06752
Plaintiff:
Ramonn S. Driscoll
Defendant:
Chemung County, Ryan Card, Christopher Moss and others
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.
