Cases 41 - 50 of 53
Cochrane v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al
as 3:2011cv00092
Defendant:
Sgt. D. Aspaiszu, Clark County and Officials, Doug Gillispie and others
Plaintiff:
Terry R. Cochrane
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NOWICKI v. COCHRAN et al
as 2:2011cv00816
Plaintiff:
CINDY NOWICKI
Defendant:
MELINA R. COCHRAN and MARITSA TORRES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
COCHRAN v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
as 2:2010cv51557
Plaintiff:
WALTER R. COCHRAN
Defendant:
A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 688
COCHRAN v. GAF CORPORATION et al
as 2:2010cv80539
Plaintiff:
LINDOL R. COCHRAN
Defendant:
GAF CORPORATION, ROCK WOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
COCHRAN v. FIBREBOARD CORPORATION et al
as 2:2010cv73843
Plaintiff:
WALTER R. COCHRAN
Defendant:
FIBREBOARD CORPORATION , JAMES R. COLSON and JAMES H. COLWELL
Thirdparty_defendant:
JAMES E. BURKE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cochran v. BAC Home Loan Servicing LP
as 4:2010cv00500
Plaintiff:
John R Cochran
Defendant:
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2009cv00761
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Lemon Bay Partners, et al v. Bruce Hammonds, et al
as 08-2167
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DONALD F. BENOIT, LEMON BAY PARTNERS and MALCOLM ROSENWALD
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES H. BERICK, MARY M. BOIES, BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI and others
Wardell v. Cochran et al
as 3:2006cv00668
Plaintiff:
James Kenton Wardell
Defendant:
Paul R. Cochran and Jim Benedetti
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Cochran v. Phelps et al
as 1:2008cv00109
Petitioner:
Donald R. Cochran
Respondent:
Perry Phelps and Attorney General of the State of Delaware
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
