Cases 51 - 60 of 115
Stuart et al v. Scottsdale, City of et al
as 2:2017cv01848
Defendant:
Unknown Phillips, David Smith, Unknown Kaufmann and others
Plaintiff:
Save Our Preserve Incorporated, Mark Stuart and Mark Stuart an Individual doing business as Save Our Preserve Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Niedermeyer v. Mascher et al
as 3:2017cv08056
Plaintiff:
Jason Douglas Niedermeyer
Defendant:
Scott Mascher, Stephen Edgar, Daphne Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lane v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
as 2:2016cv04216
Plaintiff:
John Lane
Defendant:
C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Lane v. USA
as 2:2016cv04231
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Michael Rocky Lane
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Lane v. Arpaio et al
as 2:2016cv03878
Plaintiff:
David Nathaniel Lane
Defendant:
Joseph M Arpaio, Fulton Brock, Don Stapley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lane v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
as 2:2016cv03783
Plaintiff:
Javonta Lane
Defendant:
C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Mohtadi et al v. Jewel Trucking Incorporated et al
as 3:2016cv08248
Plaintiff:
Adrena Mohtadi , Saeed Mohtadi , Edmond Escandon and others
Defendant:
Jewel Trucking Incorporated, Nackard Companies, Nackard Bottling Company and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Eisenmann v. Arpaio
as 2:2016cv03330
Petitioner:
Gary Lane Eisenmann
Respondent:
Joseph M Arpaio
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Channell et al v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
as 2:2016cv03204
Plaintiff:
Amanda Channell and Aaron Lane Channell
Defendant:
C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv03123
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
