Cases 1 - 7 of 7
RONAN v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION
as 3:2022cv00204
Plaintiff:
JAMES RONAN
Defendant:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act
Ronan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al
as 1:2012cv10048
Plaintiff:
James Ronan
Defendant:
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and David Fernandez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Daniel Anderson v. Barack Obama
as 10-1951
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DANIEL G. ANDERSON, WILLIAM COLLITON, MD, RICHARD P. DELANEY, MD and others
Defendant - Appellee:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States
Ronan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
as 1:2010cv10707
Defendant:
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Plaintiff:
James Ronan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Shakman, et al v. Cook Co Democratic, et al
as 1:1969cv02145
Plaintiff:
Michael L Shakman , Paul M Lurie , Kenneth Ayers and others
Defendant:
Democratic Organization of Cook County, The , Democratic County Central Committee of Cook County, The , City of Chicago, The and others
Respondent:
Chgo, Cty of
Intervenor:
Chicago City Council Black Caucus , Alderman Ed Smith , County Municipal Employees, Supervisors, and Foremans Unions, Local Number 1001 and others
Claimant:
Lauren B. Simon and Gloria Melendez
Objector:
RICKEY COLEMAN
Movant:
Employees Various
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Anderson et al v. Obama
as 8:2010cv00017
Plaintiff:
Daniel G. Anderson, William Colliton, Richard P. Delaney and others
Defendant:
Barack Hussein Obama
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Perez et al v. Ronan Construction, LLC et al
as 1:2007cv05750
Plaintiff:
Humberto Perez
Defendant:
Ronan Construction, LLC, Ronan Investors, LLC, James Ronan and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
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.
