Cases 31 - 40 of 42
RUTLEDGE v. COOK INCORPORATED et al
as 4:2017cv00106
Defendant:
COOK INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL LLC and WILLIAM COOK EUROPE APS
Plaintiff:
NANCY RUTLEDGE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
RUTLEDGE v. MAXON INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 1:2016cv02626
Defendant:
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF INDIANAPOLIS, LLC and MAXON INDUSTRIES, INC.
Plaintiff:
KYLE RUTLEDGE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
RUTLEDGE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2016cv00271
Petitioner:
ANTHONY RUTLEDGE
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
Chapman v. Town of Fairmount et al
as 1:2016cv00038
Plaintiff:
Brittany Ann Chapman
Defendant:
Fairmount Town of , Indiana State of , Eran Meyer and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Segovia v. Rutledge et al
as 1:2015cv00288
Plaintiff:
Juan Daniel Segovia
Defendant:
Larry Rutledge, Sam Kamdar, Ron-da and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rutledge v. Thomas et al
as 3:2015cv00401
Plaintiff:
Terry Donald Rutledge
Defendant:
R Thomas and IDOC-ISP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rutledge et al v. Biomet Orthopedics LLC et al
as 3:2014cv00967
Plaintiff:
Mary Rutledge and James R Rutledge, Jr.
Defendant:
Biomet Orthopedics LLC, Biomet Inc, Biomet Manufacturing Corp and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
RUTLEDGE v. USA
as 1:2014cv00110
Petitioner:
ANTHONY RUTLEDGE
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
RUTLEDGE v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al
as 1:2012cv01094
Defendant:
PHD KATHERINE BAICKER, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and PHD JOHN C. LECHLEITER
Plaintiff:
LINDA RUTLEDGE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv01693
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
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.
