Cases 21 - 30 of 59
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO. v. BOWLES RICE, L.L.P.
as 2:2016cv01661
Plaintiff:
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO.
Defendant:
BOWLES RICE, L.L.P.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
T. v. Bowling et al
as 1:2016mc00370
Plaintiff:
Michael T.
Defendant:
Karen Bowling and West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services
Miscellaneous_party:
Innovative Resource Group, LLC
BOWLES v. D.O.C. SCI FOREST et al
as 1:2016cv00016
Petitioner:
MILLARD BOWLES
Respondent:
D.O.C. SCI FOREST and OVERMYER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
EVANS et al v. BOWLES et al
as 2:2014cv02330
Plaintiff:
BRYON EVANS , SR. and GLORIA EVANS
Defendant:
IVORY BOWLES and McLANE COMPANY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ACKERMAN et al v. MCKESSON CORPORATION et al
as 2:2013cv05853
Plaintiff:
PAULA ACKERMAN , RUBY ADAMS , CARL AGNELLO and others
Defendant:
MCKESSON CORPORATION and SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BRAUN v. CITY OF READING et al
as 5:2013cv03192
Plaintiff:
BRENDA LEE BRAUN
Defendant:
CITY OF READING and GOLDEN BOWL RESTAURANT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
BRAUN v. CITY OF READING et al
as 5:2013cv02666
Plaintiff:
BRENDA LEE BRAUN
Defendant:
CITY OF READING and GOLDEN BOWL RESTAURANT OWNER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
BOWLING v. PFIZER, INC.
as 2:2013cv00280
Plaintiff:
KELLY BOWLING
Defendant:
PFIZER, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2012cv06474
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
BOWLING et al v. HANSON et al
as 5:2012cv00521
Plaintiff:
SCOTT BOWLING and MARA SCHLICHTMANN BOWLING
Defendant:
GERHARDT HANSON, SUPERB TRUCKING COMPANY, LLC, JOHN DOE and others
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.
