Cases 41 - 50 of 77
POTTER v. INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2015cv01897
Plaintiff:
CLARENCE POTTER
Defendant:
INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, RICK HITE, OFFICER DERRICK HARRIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Sex Discrimination
Hernandez et al v. Oneonta, City of et al
as 2:2015cv01040
Plaintiff:
Brenda Hernandez , Gregorio Hernandez, Sr , Gregorio Hernandez, Jr and others
Defendant:
Oneonta, City of , Blount, County of , Chief of Police, James Chapman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chapman v. Ladner Investments, Inc. et al
as 2:2014cv02877
Plaintiff:
James Chapman
Defendant:
Ladner Investments, Inc. , Richard Cuevas and Shelter Mutual Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Globus Medical Inc v. Vortex Spine LLC, et al
as 14-4032
Plaintiff - Appellee:
GLOBUS MEDICAL INC
Defendant - Appellant:
VORTEX SPINE LLC and JAMES CHAPMAN LONG
Globus Medical Inc v. Vortex Spine LLC, et al
as 14-3844
Plaintiff - Appellee:
GLOBUS MEDICAL INC
Defendant - Appellant:
VORTEX SPINE LLC and JAMES CHAPMAN LONG
United States v. Chapman
as 14-1268
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JAMES CHAPMAN
GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. v. VORTEX SPINE, LLC et al
as 2:2014cv03105
Plaintiff:
GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC.
Defendant:
VORTEX SPINE, LLC and JAMES CHAPMAN LONG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Chapman et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation
as WVS/2:12-cv-01960
Plaintiff:
Rita Chapman and James Chapman
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corporation
Chapman et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation
as 2:2012cv01960
Plaintiff:
Rita Chapman and James Chapman
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Chapman v. J.C.Penney Co.
as 1:2012cv00541
Plaintiff:
James Chapman and Stacie Chapman
Defendant:
J.C.Penney Co.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
