Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Paul Veliz, et al v. Cintas Corporation, et al
as 09-16629
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PAUL VELIZ, JAMES WHITE, MARK CHAINUCK and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation
Defendant:
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CINTAS PARTNERS' PLAN
Paul Veliz, et al v. Cintas Corporation, et al
as 09-16629
Plaintiff / Appellant:
PAUL VELIZ, JAMES WHITE, MARK CHAINUCK and others
Defendant / Appellee:
CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation
Defendant:
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CINTAS PARTNERS' PLAN
Paul Veliz, et al v. Cintas Corporation, et al
as 09-16507
Plaintiff - Appellee:
PAUL VELIZ, JAMES WHITE, MARK CHAINUCK and others
Defendant - Appellant:
CINTAS CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation
Defendant:
PLAN ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CINTAS PARTNERS' PLAN
Hancock v. Sedley
as 4:2007cv04664
Petitioner:
Jeff Jay Hancock
Respondent:
D. Sedley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hancock v. Sedley
as 4:2007cv04469
Petitioner:
Jeff Jay Hancock
Respondent:
D. Sedley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hancock v. Marshall
as 4:2007cv04286
Petitioner:
Jeff Jay Hancock
Respondent:
John Marshall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Veliz et al v. Cintas Corporation et al
as 5:2003cv01180
Plaintiff:
Paul Veliz, James White, Mark Chainuck and others
Defendant:
Cintas Corporation and Plan Administrator for the Cintas Partners' Plan
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards 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.
