Cases 41 - 50 of 553
Robinson v. C.R. Bard Inc et al
as 2:2023cv00455
Plaintiff:
Kristopher Robinson
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc and Davol Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Robinson v. Henderson et al
as 3:2023cv00089
Petitioner:
Martin Robinson
Respondent:
Warden Kimberly Henderson, ODRC Director Annette Chamber Smith, Ohio Attorney Genera Mike Dewine and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution
as 2:2023cv00089
Petitioner:
Sterling Robinson
Respondent:
Warden, Madison Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Robinson v. C.R. Bard Inc et al
as 2:2022cv04111
Plaintiff:
Joseph Robinson
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc and Davol Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Robinson v. C.R. Bard Inc et al
as 2:2022cv04112
Plaintiff:
Deborah Robinson
Defendant:
C.R. Bard Inc and Davol Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv02012
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Croskey v. Robinson et al
as 1:2022cv01989
Plaintiff:
Antonio Garnell Croskey
Defendant:
Judge Brent Robinson and State of Ohio
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv01935
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Robinson v. Davol, Inc et al
as 2:2022cv03722
Plaintiff:
Yolanda Robinson
Defendant:
Davol, Inc and C. R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Robinson v. City of Sandusky, Ohio et al
as 3:2022cv01457
Plaintiff:
Gerald V. Robinson
Defendant:
City of Sandusky, Ohio, Officer John Powell, Officer Carissa Cruz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
