Cases 51 - 60 of 117
Robin Combs, Sr. v. Washington State, et al
as 14-35821
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBIN BLAKE COMBS, Sr.
Defendant - Appellee:
WASHINGTON STATE, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, Warden and others
Bailey v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as 2:2014cv01296
Plaintiff:
David Jefferson Bailey
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bailey v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as 2:2014cv24402
Plaintiff:
David Jefferson Bailey
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bailey v. Bottom
as 5:2014cv00305
Petitioner:
David Wayne Bailey
Respondent:
Don Bottom
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Bailey v. Clayton County Detention Facility
as 1:2014cv02351
Plaintiff:
David Tariq Bailey
Defendant:
Clayton County Detention Facility
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Bailey v. Ingram et al
as 5:2014cv00279
Plaintiff:
David Wayne Bailey
Defendant:
Randy Ingram, Kevin Bugg, Lonnitta Tomlison and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bailey et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2014cv19049
Plaintiff:
Sarah Bailey and David Burl Bailey
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
David Bailey v. William Stephens, Director
as 14-50316
Petitioner - Appellant:
DAVID ALEXANDER BAILEY
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Mathis et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al
as 3:2013cv07882
Plaintiff:
Mary Mathis , Jose Paris , Russell Alexander and others
Defendant:
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and MCKESSON CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Mathis et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al
as CAN/3:13-cv-05468
Plaintiff:
Mary Mathis , Jose Paris , Russell Alexander and others
Defendant:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and McKesson Corporation
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.
