Cases 1 - 10 of 558
Galvan v. Switski et al
as 1:2023cv03158
Plaintiff:
John Galvan
Defendant:
Victor Switski, James Hanrahan, Leroy Almanza and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nanez v. Switski et al
as 1:2023cv03162
Plaintiff:
Francisco Nanez
Defendant:
Victor Switski, James Hanrahan, Leroy Almanza and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Almendarez v. Switski et al
as 1:2023cv03165
Plaintiff:
Arthur Almendarez
Defendant:
Victor Switski, James Hanrahan, Leroy Almanza and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Leighton Curtis v. USA
as 23-11571
Petitioner / Appellant:
LEIGHTON MARTIN CURTIS
Respondent / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Hays v. Adams et al
as 2:2023cv00141
Plaintiff:
John Michael Hays
Defendant:
Deputy Joseph Adams, Deputy Elijah Jones, Deputy Stephan Blaakman and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Roe v. Patterson
as 23-40281
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Jane Roe
Defendant / Appellee:
Leighton Paige Patterson and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Asurion, LLC v. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
as 3:2023cv00424
Plaintiff:
Asurion, LLC
Defendant:
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
JONES v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv08637
Plaintiff:
LEIGHTON JONES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Leighton v. GlaxoSmithKline (America) Inc., et al
as 3:2023cv22797
Plaintiff:
John Leighton
Defendant:
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, GlaxoSmithKline (America) Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity
Khristos v. State of Illinois, The et al
as 1:2023cv01401
Plaintiff:
Keywann Khristos
Defendant:
State of Illinois, The, City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights 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.
