Cases 31 - 40 of 47
Abernathy et al v. Chicago
as 1:2012cv00870
Plaintiff:
Tony Abernathy , Phillip Adams , Juan Ahedo and others
Defendant:
City of Chicago
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Castillo v. Santa Clara County Main Jail, et al.
as 3:2011cv06407
Plaintiff:
Christopher James Castillo
Defendant:
Santa Clara County Main Jail, Thomas Duran, Anthony Guerrero and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2011cv01030
Plaintiff:
Carl Evans
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
EVANS et al v. LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. et al
as 3:2011cv01078
Plaintiff:
CARL EVANS , Donald Spencer , VALERIE SPENCER and others
Defendant:
Linden Research, Inc. and PHILIP ROSEDALE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
EVANS et al v. LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. et al
as 4:2011cv01078
Plaintiff:
CARL EVANS , Donald Spencer , VALERIE SPENCER and others
Defendant:
Linden Research, Inc. and PHILIP ROSEDALE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
EVANS et al v. LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. et al
as 4:2011cv01078
Plaintiff:
CARL EVANS , Donald Spencer , VALERIE SPENCER and others
Defendant:
Linden Research, Inc. and PHILIP ROSEDALE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Evans v. Graphic Packaging
as 1:2010cv00100
Plaintiff:
Carl Evans
Defendant:
Graphic Packaging
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
US v. Carl Tooley, II
as 10-4936
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
CARL EVAN TOOLEY, II
EVANS et al v. LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. et al
as 2:2010cv01679
Plaintiff:
CARL EVANS , DONALD SPENCER , VALERIE SPENCER and others
Defendant:
LINDEN RESEARCH, INC. and PHILIP ROSEDALE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Textron Financial Corporation v. Evans
as 8:2009cv01339
Plaintiff:
Textron Financial Corporation and Textron Financial Corporation
Defendant:
Carl Evans
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
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.
