Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Jutla v. Acumen Assessments et al
as 5:2024cv04007
Plaintiff:
Rajninder Jutla
Defendant:
Acumen Assessments, Scott Stacy, Michael Seely and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice
Whipple v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv01214
Plaintiff:
John Whipple
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
JENSON et al v. BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
as 2:2018cv00037
Plaintiff:
JAMIE JENSON , AMBER JACKSON , MAGEN ALLEN and others
Defendant:
BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Pennella, M.D. v. Acumen Assessments, et al
as 2:2017cv02327
Plaintiff:
Samuel C. Pennella, M.D.
Defendant:
Acumen Assessments , John Whipple, M.D. , Scott Stacy and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Whipple v. Eliason et al
as 1:2016cv00131
Plaintiff:
John Whipple
Defendant:
Scott Eliason, Corizon Inc. and John Migliori
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Whipple et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al
as 2:2015cv11583
Plaintiff:
Angie K. Whipple and John Whipple
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corporation , Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Safari Club International, et al v. Lawrence Rudolph
as 14-56236
Plaintiff - Appellee:
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL and JOHN WHIPPLE, an individual
Defendant - Appellant:
LAWRENCE P. RUDOLPH, Dr.
Ruley v. Whipple
as 4:2014cv00478
Plaintiff:
Rashaun Ruley
Defendant:
John Whipple
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Safari Club International, et al v. Lawrence Rudolph
as 14-55113
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL and JOHN WHIPPLE, an individual
Defendant - Appellee:
LAWRENCE P. RUDOLPH, Dr.
Safari Club International et al v. Dr. Lawrence P. Rudolph et al
as 8:2013cv01989
Defendant:
Does and Dr. Lawrence P. Rudolph
Plaintiff:
Safari Club International and John Whipple
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.
