Cases 1 - 10 of 52
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv00007
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv00007
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Stone v. Wakefield & Associates, LLC
as 1:2025cv03749
Plaintiff:
Daniel Stone
Defendant:
Wakefield & Associates, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Dullum v. Akumin Inc et al
as 6:2025cv13370
Plaintiff:
Justin Dullum
Defendant:
Akumin Inc and Daniel Stone
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Lopez v. Wakefield & Associates, LLC
as 1:2025cv02937
Defendant:
Wakefield & Associates, LLC and Revco Solutions, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Cesar Lopez, Janice Potter, Bryan Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle
Stone v. Doe et al
as 3:2025cv01244
Plaintiff:
Danielle Stone
Defendant:
John Doe and Jane Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sakon v. Johnson
as 24-1991
Defendant:
F. PERRONE, Officer, of the Glastonbury Police Department, Town of Glastonbury, WILMARY LABONTE, Officer, of the Manchester Police Department, Town of Manchester, PETER J. CELIO, Officer, of the Manchester Police Department, Town of Manchester and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN ALAN SAKON
Sakon v. Johnson
as 24-1747
Plaintiff:
JOHN ALAN SAKON
Defendant:
JOHN JOHNSON, F. PERRONE, BRUCE D. SKEHAN and others
STONE v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv05335
Plaintiff:
DANIEL STONE
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Sakon v. Johnson et al
as 3:2023cv00107
Plaintiff:
John Alan Sakon
Defendant:
John Johnson, F Perrone, Bruce D. Skehan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
