Cases 41 - 50 of 95
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2016cv00026
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Austin v. Cincinnati City of et al
as 1:2015cv00608
Plaintiff:
Clyde Lee Austin
Defendant:
Cincinnati City of, P.O. Daniels, P.O. Sneed and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Padgitt v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as 2:2014cv02068
Plaintiff:
Clyde Eugene Padgitt
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Kelly v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as 2:2014cv01099
Plaintiff:
Clyde Walter Kelly
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Scott v. Sloane
as 1:2014cv01219
Petitioner:
Clyde Scott
Respondent:
Brigham Sloane
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Lunsford v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.
as 1:2014dp20063
Plaintiff:
Clyde Lunsford
Defendant:
Johnson & Johnson Inc. , DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. , Thomas Parker Vail and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Haight v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2014dp20038
Plaintiff:
Clyde Haight
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , DePuy, Inc. , DePuy International, Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bibbs v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. et al
as 1:2013dp21288
Plaintiff:
Clyde Marie Bibbs and Bobby Bibbs
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , DePuy, Inc. , DePuy International Limited and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Douglas v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2013dp20816
Plaintiff:
Clyde Douglas
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. , Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. and Commonwealth Surgical Solutions, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Caparanis v. Ford Motor Company et al
as 1:2013cv00926
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company, Clyde H. Hescox II and Charles A. Kemplin
Plaintiff:
Robert Caparanis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
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.
