Cases 41 - 50 of 4,187
Andrew Randolf v. Matt Macauley
as 24-1202
Petitioner:
ANDREW MAURICE RANDOLF
Respondent:
MATT MACAULEY, Warden
Butler v. Eddy et al.
as 3:2024cv00461
Plaintiff:
Benjanell Butler, Jr.
Defendant:
Dr. Andrew Eddy, David Caudill and Landon Kohls
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Eckstein v. Franklin County Corrections II et al.
as 2:2024cv01072
Plaintiff:
Andrew J Eckstein
Defendant:
Franklin County Corrections II, Armor Health, Dallas Baldwin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Heath v. Cole et al
as 1:2024cv10568
Plaintiff:
Mark Andrew Heath and Mark Andrew Heath [E-filer]
Defendant:
Gary Charles Cole, Jr., Adrian Anderson and Oscoda, County of
Smith v. Meigs County Government et al
as 1:2024cv00104
Plaintiff:
NATHAN ALEXANDER SMITH
Defendant:
MEIGS COUNTY GOVERNMENT and ROBERT J LEONARD
Intervenor:
Kenneth Andrew Colbaugh
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Poronto v. Hoist et al
as 4:2024cv10522
Plaintiff:
Andrew Poronto
Defendant:
T.D. Hoist, Sarah Breen, Kenneth Debus and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Wilson v. Davol, Inc et al
as 2:2024cv00897
Plaintiff:
Michael Andrew Wilson
Defendant:
Davol, Inc and C.R. Bard, Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Andrews v. Davol, Inc et al
as 2:2024cv00903
Plaintiff:
Mary Margaret Andrews
Defendant:
Davol, Inc and C.R. Bard, Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Eckstein v. Chambers-Smith et al
as 2:2024cv00849
Plaintiff:
Andrew J Eckstein
Defendant:
Annette Chambers-Smith and Jennifer Black
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Weaver v. Doerflien et al
as 1:2024cv00086
Plaintiff:
Mykell Weaver
Defendant:
Lt Dean Doerflien, Sgt William Hane, P.O. Andrew Morris and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
