Cases 61 - 70 of 92
Crary v. Dixon et al
as 2:2012cv02123
Plaintiff:
James Macryland Crary
Defendant:
Aaron Dixon and David Stone
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
CASE NUMBER NOT USED
as 2:2012cv02107
Plaintiff:
LRI
Defendant:
Raymond Stone
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Laughing Rabbit, Inc. v. Stone
as 2:2012cv02108
Plaintiff:
Laughing Rabbit Inc
Defendant:
Raymond Stone
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Stone v. Barrett et al
as 2:2012cv02035
Plaintiff:
Gordon K Stone
Defendant:
William P. Barrett , Valley Orthopedic Building Partnership II, Proliance Surgeons, Inc., P.S. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Caylor v. Elfo et al
as 2:2012cv01104
Plaintiff:
John B Caylor
Defendant:
Bill Elfo, Wendy Jones, David Grant and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Broadcast Music Inc et al v. JSB & G, Inc. et al
as 3:2012cv05173
Defendant:
JSB & G Inc , Rex Butler Wolff and Lynn Wolff
Plaintiff:
Broadcast Music Inc , Bocephus Music Inc , EO Smith Music and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Northwest Administrators Inc v. Stone & Webster Construction Inc
as 2:2012cv00303
Plaintiff:
Northwest Administrators Inc
Defendant:
Stone & Webster Construction Inc
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
United States of America v. Hay et al
as 2:2011cv05154
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Amy Hay, Patricia Hall and Michael Stone
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729
Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Stone and Webster Construction, Inc.
as 2:2011cv01727
Plaintiff:
Northwest Administrators, Inc.
Defendant:
Stone and Webster Construction, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Williams v. Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2011cv01274
Plaintiff:
James Williams
Defendant:
Department of Corrections, Allon Stone, Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
