Cases 21 - 30 of 44
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv00518
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv01134
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2011cv62729
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 11-6450
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Trent v. ADT Security Services, Inc.
as 1:2011cv11912
Plaintiff:
Mark S Trent
Defendant:
ADT Security Services, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
ADT Security Services, Incorpo, et al v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protectio
as 11-2905
Plaintiff - Appellee:
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED, D.M.C. SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED, ILLINOIS ALARM SERVICES, INCORPORATED and others
Defendant - Appellant:
LISLE-WOODRIDGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2011cv00163
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ADT Security Services, Inc., et al v. Chicago Metro Fire Prevention
as 10-3968
Plaintiff - Appellee:
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED, ALARM DETECTION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, D.M.C. SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED and others
Defendant - Appellant:
CHICAGO METROPOLITAN FIRE PREVENTION COMPANY
ADT Security Services, Inc., et al v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire District
as 10-3754
Plaintiff - Appellee:
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED, ALARM DETECTION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, D.M.C. SECURITY SERVICES, INCORPORATED and others
Defendant - Appellant:
LISLE-WOODRIDGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010cv04268
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
