Cases 51 - 60 of 202,971
Doe (JDC) v. Lee et al
as 3:2024cv00696
Plaintiff:
John Doe (JDC)
Defendant:
William B. Lee and David B. Rausch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Johnson v. Becton Dickinson and Company et al
as 2:2024cv01355
Plaintiff:
David Renald Johnson
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
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1243
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Murphy v. County of Chemung
as 24-1534
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER M. MURPHY, JR., -
Defendant:
WILLIAM WASHBURN, COUNTY OF CHEMUNG, CITY OF ELMIRA and others
Lawrence Wilder, Sr. v. State of North Carolina
as 24-6548
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., ESTATE OF CAROLYN BRYANT and FEDERAL JUDGE ELIZABETH MULLIGAN
Defendant:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, FEDERAL JUDGE RICHARD E. MYERS, II, NEW HANOVER COUNTY NC SUPERIOR COURT and others
Miller v. Dunn
as 24-10500
Plaintiff:
Bradley B. Miller
Defendant:
Virginia Talley Dunn, Individually, Andrea Plumlee, In both Individual and Official Capacities, Danielle Diaz, In both Individual and Official Capacities and others
Puki v. County of Okanogan, et al.
as 24-3556
Plaintiff:
MICHELLE L. PUKI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lori Langton
Defendant:
COUNTY OF OKANOGAN, OKANOGAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE, a Washington non-profit corporation, DAVID KOPP and others
Carl Puckett, Jr., et al v. Ain Jeem, Inc., et al
as 24-5537
Plaintiff:
CARL ELLEN PUCKETT, JR. and MARCELLA PUCKETT
Defendant:
AIN JEEM, INC., CHRIS STAVRO, DEBORAH MORALES and others
Sneed, et al. v. Talphera, Inc., et al.
as 24-3560
Plaintiff:
AARON SNEED, JR., YAACOV MUSRY and DAVID O'GRADY
Defendant:
TALPHERA, INC., formerly known as: AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., VINCENT J. ANGOTTI and PAMELA P. PALMER
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.
