Cases 41 - 50 of 22,542
Bergenske v. Becton Dickinson and Company et al
as 2:2024cv01277
Plaintiff:
Terry Eugene Bergenske
Defendant:
Becton Dickinson and Company, C R Bard Incorporated, Bard Access Systems Incorporated and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
US v. Eugene Watkins
as 24-6523
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
EUGENE ROBERT WATKINS
Beadle v. Rardin
as 0:2024cv02045
Petitioner:
Jack Eugene Beadle
Respondent:
Jared Rardin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Pena v. Stevens Transport, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv03887
Plaintiff:
Maria Checo Pena
Defendant:
Stevens Transport, Inc. and Eugene Kritzer
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (
STOCKTON et al v. HARRY et al
as 1:2024cv00144
Plaintiff:
RONALD STOCKTON, ANTHONY TILLMAN, MICHAEL FIGUEROA and others
Defendant:
LAUREL R. HARRY, GEORGE LITTLE, S. SHAFFER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Windham v. Dept. of Agriculture
as 6:2024cv00881
Plaintiff:
Corey Eugene Windham
Defendant:
Dept. of Agriculture
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hancock v. Sarinana
as 5:2024cv00579
Plaintiff:
Anthony Eugene Hancock
Defendant:
Police Officer T. Sarinana
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
(HC) James v. Sacramento County Superior Court
as 2:2024cv01511
Petitioner:
Ronald Eugene James
Respondent:
Sacramento County Superior Court
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Harkey v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02981
Plaintiff:
Eugene Harkey
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Caston, et al. v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., et al.
as 24-3349
Plaintiff:
ANDREA M. CASTON, RICHARD GITHENS, PATRICK EUGENE WAGHER and others
Defendant:
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC., GENENTECH, INC., ROCHE LABORATORIES INC. and others
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.
