Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Coyle et al v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv02188
Plaintiff:
James Coyle and Meghan Coyle
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Coyle v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2023cv03405
Interested Party:
SSA
Plaintiff:
Melissa S. Coyle
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 416 Denial of Social Security Benefits
Coyle v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv04824
Plaintiff:
Brian Coyle
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv01454
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12131
Coyle v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2019cv03505
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C. R. Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Michael Coyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Coyle et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2018dp20058
Plaintiff:
Michael Coyle and Kimberly Coyle
Defendant:
DePuy Inc., DePuy International Limited, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hill v. Coyle et al
as 3:2016cv00120
Defendant:
John A. Coyle and Simpson Enterprise Trucking LLC
Plaintiff:
Nevin Thomas Hill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hechter v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co et al
as 2:2014cv02720
Plaintiff:
Brittanie Hechter
Defendant:
OhioHealth , Dreyfuss Williams & Associates Co LPA and Michael Coyle
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Coyle v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
as 1:2013cv00375
Defendant:
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. and John/Jane Doe
Plaintiff:
Charles J Coyle
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Coyle v. Medtronic Inc et al
as 3:2008cv00373
Plaintiff:
Lloyd Ray Coyle and Lloyd Ray Coyle
Defendant:
Medtronic Inc, Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co. and Medtronic International Technology Inc
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
