Cases 41 - 50 of 63
JOHNSON v. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC.
as 2:2011cv06182
Plaintiff:
DAVID JOHNSON
Defendant:
CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
DOUGHERTY et al v. LITTLE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION LLC et al
as 2:2011cv05913
Plaintiff:
LAUREN DOUGHERTY and GERALD LYNCH
Defendant:
LITTLE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION LLC and DAVID JOHNSON, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bethume v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company
as 3:2011cv03864
Defendant:
BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
Plaintiff:
John David Krulisky and Jeffrey David Johnson
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
IN RE: CAMDEN POLICE CASES
as 1:2011cv01315
Plaintiff:
ALANDA FORREST , JEFFREY HICKS , FRANK SHAW and others
Defendant:
KEVIN PARRY, JASON STETSER, CITY OF CAMDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Bridgeforth v. Johnson et al
as 1:2011cv00171
Plaintiff:
Otis Michael Bridgeforth
Defendant:
David Johnson, C. Jefferson, Commissioner and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JOHNSON et al v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC
as 2:2011cv00299
Plaintiff:
DAVID JOHNSON and CATHY JOHNSON
Defendant:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
JOHNSON v. CITY OF CAMDEN et al
as 1:2010cv06669
Plaintiff:
DAVID JOHNSON
Defendant:
CITY OF CAMDEN, CITY OF CAMDEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CAMDEN COUNTY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MILLS et al v. CITY OF CAMDEN et al
as 1:2010cv06277
Plaintiff:
RON MILLS , ANGEL CARABALLO , WILLIAM BAYLOCK and others
Defendant:
CITY OF CAMDEN, CITY OF CAMDEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, CAMDEN COUNTY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2010cv02628
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Johnson v. Astrue
as 4:2009cv02228
Plaintiff:
David Johnson
Defendant:
Michael Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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.
