Cases 11 - 20 of 62
Ballard v. Broling et al
as 2:2023cv00482
Plaintiff:
James Lee Ballard
Defendant:
John Lyon Broling, Brian C Rodgers and Edgar Jones, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Sposato v. Carey et al
as 5:2023cv00364
Plaintiff:
Richard Sposato
Defendant:
Paul G. Carey, Jed Hudson, John Lyons and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
BALLARD v. BROLING
as 1:2023cv00024
Plaintiff:
JAMES LEE BALLARD
Defendant:
JOHN LYON BROLING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Ballard v. Broling
as 1:2023cv20492
Plaintiff:
James Lee Ballard
Defendant:
John Lyon Broling
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights
James Lee Ballard v. John Lyon Broling, et al
as 22-12651
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMES LEE BALLARD
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN LYON BROLING, Assistant Regional Counselor, CANDACE KAYE BROWER, Regional Counselor and DAVID KREIDER, Alachua County Judge
Lyons v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
as 3:2022cv05462
Plaintiff:
John Lyons
Defendant:
USAA Casualty Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
LYONS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv08283
Plaintiff:
JOHN LYONS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
BALLARD v. BROLING et al
as 1:2022cv00104
Plaintiff:
JAMES LEE BALLARD
Defendant:
JOHN LYON BROLING, CANDACE KAYE BROWER and DAVID KREIDER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Lyons v. GEICO Casualty Company
as 2:2022cv00455
Plaintiff:
John Lyons
Defendant:
GEICO Casualty Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2021cv01594
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
