Cases 1 - 10 of 22
Harleysville Insurance Company et al v. Mansi, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv00180
Plaintiff:
Harleysville Insurance Company and Nationwide Assurance Company
Defendant:
Mansi, Inc. doing business as Dudek Oil Company and Greg Doyle's Canteen, Ltd.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Property Damage
Doyle v. Coyne-Fague
as 1:2021cv00479
Petitioner:
Daniel E. Doyle, Jr.
Respondent:
Patricia A. Coyne-Fague and Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
United States of America v. Doyle, II et al
as 1:2019cv00317
Defendant:
James E. Doyle, II and Doyle Respiratory, LLC
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust v. Doyle
as 1:2017cv00426
Plaintiff:
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.,
Defendant:
Lisa C. Doyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Forbes v. Wall et al
as 1:2014cv00322
Defendant:
Ashbel T. Wall, Alfred Leach, Lt. William Galligan and others
Plaintiff:
Darcy Forbes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00202
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Knowles et al v. Target Corporation
as 1:2013cv00793
Plaintiff:
William B. Knowles and Patricia A. Doyle
Defendant:
Target Corporation
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 2701
Walker v. Wall et al
as 1:2013cv00303
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Tristian Walker
Defendant:
Ashbel T. Wall, II, David McCauley, Bobby Catlow and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Suntrust Bank v. Doyle et al
as 1:2013mc00047
Plaintiff:
Suntrust Bank
Defendant:
Daniel E. Doyle, Jr., Katherine Doyle and Institute for International Sport
Munoz v. Weeden et al
as 1:2012cv00076
Plaintiff:
Erik Munoz
Defendant:
Warden Weeden, A. T. Wall, Aceto 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.
