Cases 1 - 10 of 221
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-5249
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Matthew Jones v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, et al
as 24-3213
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW JONES
Defendant:
OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, CVG AIRPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT and CINCINNATI, OH HIGHWAY PATROL POST 31
Agness McCury, et al v. Thomas Wright, et al
as 24-5208
Plaintiff:
ETHA JONES and AGNESS MCCURRY
Defendant:
JUDGE THOMAS J. WRIGHT, BENJAMIN CURTIS MCCURRY, KELLY J. MCCURRY and others
Agness McCurry, et al v. Thomas Wright, et al
as 24-5196
Plaintiff:
ETHA JONES and AGNESS MCCURRY
Defendant:
JUDGE THOMAS J. WRIGHT, BENJAMIN CURTIS MCCURRY, KELLY J. MCCURRY and others
Estate of Q.W., et al v. Lucas County Children Services, et al
as 24-3144
Plaintiff:
ESTATE OF Q.W., By and with administrator, Jamie Redmond, as mother and natural guardian for, Q.W., and along with Quenton Whitsell, as father and natural guardian, JAMIE REDMOND, QUENTON WHITSELL and others
Defendant:
LUCAS COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES, ROBIN REESE, Individually and as agent of Lucas County Children Services, KATRINA JONES, Individually and as agent of Lucas County Children Services and others
Mawule Tepe v. Whirlpool Customer Experience Center, et al
as 23-6085
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
WHIRLPOOL CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CENTER, aka Whirlpool cXc, PATTON MUSICK, MONICA J. CULPEPPER and others
Mawule Tepe v. USA, et al
as 23-6086
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CURTIS L. COLLIER, United States District Court Judge, KATHERINE A. CRYTZER, United States District Court Judge and others
Mawule Tepe v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al
as 23-6093
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MAWULE TEPE
Defendant / Appellee:
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, MARK JONES and DAKIA TAYLOR
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-6097
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
