Cases 11 - 20 of 2,568
SMITH et al v. USA
as 1:2024cv00485
Plaintiff:
GERALD F. SMITH, JR. and KAYE D. SMITH
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
Smith, Jr. II v. Osborn CI
as 3:2024cv00574
Plaintiff:
Charles D. Smith, Jr. II
Defendant:
Osborn CI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dees (PS) et al v. Hood et al
as 1:2024cv00848
Plaintiff:
Jennifer L. Dees and Ethan D. Smith
Defendant:
William Hood, Alexis King, Christopher Zenisek and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Armstrong v. Chapman et al
as 2:2024cv00575
Plaintiff:
Steven Matthew Armstrong
Defendant:
Travis Chapman, Nima Afshar, Haley Jaramillo and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Mitchell v. Smith et al
as 1:2024cv01027
Plaintiff:
Brianna Racquel Mitchell
Defendant:
Marc D. Smith, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and Kimberly Bates
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Sasser v. Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2024cv01869
Plaintiff:
Andrew Sasser
Defendant:
Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc., David Harris, Hannah Craven and others
SMITH v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al
as 3:2024cv02393
Defendant:
LLT MANAGEMENT LLC, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON and others
Plaintiff:
JANIS D SMITH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
SMITH THEE v. U.S. SECRET SERVICE
as 1:2024cv00668
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO D. SMITH THEE
Defendant:
SECRET SERVICE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Petition for Removal
Walton v. Smith
as 1:2024cv01850
Plaintiff:
Robert E. Walton
Defendant:
Dianna D. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
US v. Michael Harriot
as 24-6181
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
MICHAEL OWEN HARRIOT, a/k/a Lanky, a/k/a Donovan Smith, a/k/a Richard Onyett, a/k/a Bernard Barber, a/k/a James D. Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith
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.
