Cases 21 - 30 of 55
Spagnolo v. Inuvo, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv12099
Plaintiff:
Domenic Spagnolo
Defendant:
Richard Howe, Charles Morgan, Gordon Cameron and others
Akerman v. INUVO, Inc. et al
as 2:2018cv02407
Defendant:
Charles Morgan, Richard Howe, Patrick Terrell and others
Plaintiff:
Morris Akerman
D'Arcy v. Inuvo, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv02023
Defendant:
Charles Morgan, Richard Howe, CPT Merger Sub, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Peter D'Arcy
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2017cv01142
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
David Roberts v. Riverside County Supervisor, et al
as 16-56653
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID LEE ROBERTS
Respondent - Appellee:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERVISOR, CHARLES MORGAN, County Superior Court Judge and JOHN H. AQUILINA, Public Defender
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHEAL RUSTON, Deputy District Attorney
David Lee Roberts v. Riverside County Supervisor et al
as 5:2016cv01777
Respondent:
John H. Aquilina, Charles Morgan, Riverside County Supervisor and others
Plaintiff:
David Lee Roberts
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Jones, et al.
as 4:2016cv00229
Plaintiff:
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
Defendant:
Carolyn Whitehead Jones, United States of America , William Albert Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Roberts v. Riverside County Supervisor et al
as 3:2016cv02060
Plaintiff:
David Lee Roberts
Defendant:
Riverside County Supervisor, Charles Morgan, John H. Aquilina and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jones et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2016cv00268
Plaintiff:
Marcella Jones and Charles Morgan Jones
Defendant:
C. R. Bard, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Morgan et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2015cv16457
Plaintiff:
Michelle Morgan and Charles Morgan
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
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.
