Cases 1 - 10 of 69
Ross v. Bluefield Area Transit et al
as 1:2023cv00425
Plaintiff:
Michael Ross
Defendant:
Bluefield Area Transit and John Reeves
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
Wiseman v. Reeves
as 2:2023cv00379
Plaintiff:
Sandra K. Wiseman
Defendant:
Mary Haines Reeves
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Hill v. Cummins Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv00114
Plaintiff:
Reeves B. Hill, II
Defendant:
Cummins Inc. and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv00017
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346
Reeves v. United States of America
as 2:2021cv00012
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Deangelo Reeves
Interested Party:
Mark A. Atkinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Reeves v. Antonelli
as 1:2019cv00142
Respondent:
Bryan M. Antonelli
Petitioner:
Darnell Reeves
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Rover Pipeline LLC v. Rover Tract No(s). WV-TY-SHC-083.000, comprised of temporary easement(s) over a parcel of land in Lincoln District, Tyler County, West Virginia, consisting of 10.173 acres
as 5:2019cv00044
Defendant:
Richard Reeves, II, Rover Tract No(s). WV-TY-SHC-083.00 and Any Unknown Owners
Plaintiff:
Rover Pipeline LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 717
Reeves v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2017cv04510
Plaintiff:
Margaret Reeves
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Reeves et al v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al
as 2:2017cv03744
Plaintiff:
Karen Reeves , Retha Clememts , Shereel Connolly and others
Defendant:
Boston Scientific, Corp. and Doe Manufacturers 1-100
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Reeves v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2017cv03421
Plaintiff:
Marilyn Reeves
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
