Cases 41 - 50 of 140
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv02655
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020oe02655
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv01994
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 626
Pairan v. Guardian Protection Services of Ohio, LLC et al
as 1:2020cv00017
Defendant:
Guardian Protection Services of Ohio, LLC, Guardian Protection Services, Inc. and Armstrong Group of Companies
Plaintiff:
Ronald Pairan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc. Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation
as 2:2018md02846
Defendant:
Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc. Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, C.R. Bard, Inc., Davol, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Pauline R Currey, Gerald Lane, Abraham Furleiter and others
Interested Party:
David Butler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2019cv02401
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Luxottica Group S.P.A. v. Lutes et al
as 1:2019cv00765
Plaintiff:
Luxottica Group S.p.A.
Defendant:
Sheena L. Armstrong, Cynthia M. Lutes and Sheena Lutes
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
Nolan et al v. Village of Chesterhill et al
as 2:2019cv03963
Defendant:
Village of Chesterhill, Jerica Simmons, Dustin Parsons and others
Plaintiff:
Ann Vosburg and Kathryn L. Nolan
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2018cv02809
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Armstrong v. Bureau of Sentenc Computation et al
as 1:2018cv00800
Defendant:
Ms. Williams, Bureau of Sentenc Computation and Melissa Adms
Petitioner:
A.D. Armstrong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
