Cases 51 - 60 of 724
Hill v. Stark County Sheriff et al
as 5:2023cv00236
Plaintiff:
Charles S. Hill
Defendant:
Stark County Sheriff, Corrections SGT. Eaton, Corrections Officer Pries and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Joe Hands Promotions, Inc. v. Laney et al
as 4:2023cv00074
Plaintiff:
Joe Hands Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
Warren Laney and Pebbles Hidden Hill LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553 Violation of Illegal Interception of Cable System
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00720
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Hill v. Davol, Inc et al
as 2:2022cv04294
Plaintiff:
Dorinda Hill
Defendant:
Davol, Inc and C.R. Bard, Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Hill v. Fender
as 1:2022cv02083
Petitioner:
Rayvon Hill
Respondent:
Warden Douglas Fender
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hill v. Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund
as 1:2022cv02073
Plaintiff:
David Hill
Defendant:
Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Hill v. C.R Bard Inc et al
as 2:2022cv03915
Plaintiff:
Lonnie C Hill
Defendant:
C.R Bard Inc and Davol, Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Trollinger v. Bracey et al
as 4:2022cv01905
Plaintiff:
Mario Trollinger
Defendant:
Warden Bracey, Major Hill and L.T. Smallwood
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill v. Chamber-Smith et al
as 2:2022cv03742
Plaintiff:
Tyrice Hill
Defendant:
Annette Chamber-Smith and Lindsay Navarre
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hill v. USA
as 1:2022cv01880
Petitioner:
Alonzo Hill
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
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.
