Cases 31 - 40 of 42
Sickler v. Curtis et al
as 2:2011cv00205
Plaintiff:
Joseph Sickler
Defendant:
T. Curtis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Curtis v. Barry et al
as 3:2011cv00013
Petitioner:
Aaron T. Curtis
Respondent:
Stan G. Barry and Gene M. Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Watson v. Curtis et al
as 3:2010cv01024
Plaintiff:
Tyson N. Watson
Defendant:
Mark T. Curtis, John B. Kent and Clinton K. Hodges
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bach v. Idaho State Board of Medicine et al
as 4:2010cv00548
Plaintiff:
John N. Bach and Cindy Lee Bach
Defendant:
Idaho State Board of Medicine, Steve J. Wright, Wright, John, Tolson, and Wayne and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Bach v. Idaho State Board of Medicine et al
as 1:2010cv00548
Plaintiff:
John N. Bach and Cindy Lee Bach
Defendant:
Idaho State Board of Medicine, Steve J. Wright, Wright, John, Tolson, and Wayne and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Lenoir v. Curtis et al
as 3:2010cv00992
Plaintiff:
Dale Lee Lenoir
Defendant:
L.T. T. Curtis, Doctor Ramy, Warden Reddish and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cameron v. City of Springfield et al
as 3:2009cv00188
Plaintiff:
Sean Lamont Cameron
Defendant:
City of Springfield, Springfield Police Department, Michael T. Curtis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
T. CURTIS & COMPANY, P.C. et al v. ENVISION HOSPITAL CORPORATION et al
as 1:2009cv00376
Plaintiff:
T. CURTIS & COMPANY, P.C. and TANYA CURTIS
Defendant:
ENVISION HOSPITAL CORPORATION, GREATER SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY HOSPITAL CORPORATION I and PAUL R. TUFT
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Haynes v. Curtis et al
as 3:2008cv00448
Plaintiff:
Michael Haynes
Defendant:
L. T. Curtis and M. Hicks
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Curtis v Johnson & Johnson, et al
as 1:2008oe40012
Plaintiff:
Yerinita T. Curtis
Defendant:
Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
