Cases 31 - 40 of 43
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2014cv00128
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
COSCO MANAGEMENT, INC. et al v. WING ENTERPRISES, INC. et al
as 1:2013cv00414
Plaintiff:
AMERIWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC., COSCO MANAGEMENT, INC. and DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC.
Defendant:
WING ENTERPRISES, INC. and WING ENTERPRISES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
COSCO MANAGEMENT, INC. et al v. TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 1:2012cv01245
Plaintiff:
COSCO MANAGEMENT, INC. and DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC.
Defendant:
TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2011cv00292
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv01065
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv00611
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv00502
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2008cv00209
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2008cv01318
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
TULLY v. RUSH COUNTY PROSECUTOR PAUL BARADA et al
as 1:2008cv01243
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL TULLY
Defendant:
RUSH COUNTY PROSECUTOR PAUL BARADA and RUSH COUNTY JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER CATHERINE CUSTER
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
