Cases 1 - 10 of 595
Richardson v. Menard Inc
as 2:2024cv00079
Plaintiff:
Joyce A Richardson
Defendant:
Menard Inc doing business as Menards
Other:
Galen Bradley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Stecich v. Menard, Inc.
as 1:2024cv01400
Plaintiff:
Diane Stecich
Defendant:
Menard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
SemiLED Innovations LLC v. Menard, Inc.
as 3:2024cv00099
Plaintiff:
SemiLED Innovations LLC
Defendant:
Menard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
PETRO v. MENARD, INC. et al
as 1:2024cv00592
Plaintiff:
LEO PETRO
Defendant:
MENARD, INC. and MENARDS STORE #3180 AT COLUMBUS INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Rebenack v. Menard Inc
as 2:2024cv00111
Plaintiff:
Terry L Rebenack
Defendant:
Menard Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Reeves et al v. Menard, Inc.
as 2:2024cv00036
Plaintiff:
Alvin T. Reeves and Alta Lavizzo
Defendant:
Menard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
DESALVO et al v. MENARD, INC.
as 1:2024cv00530
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DESALVO and KRISTEN DESALVO
Defendant:
MENARD, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Davis, Lamont v. Menard, Inc.
as 3:2024cv00085
Plaintiff:
Lamont D. Davis
Defendant:
Menard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SemiLED Innovations LLC v. Menard, Inc.
as 1:2023cv16737
Plaintiff:
SemiLED Innovations LLC
Defendant:
Menard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Noland v. Energizer Auto Manufacturing, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv16598
Plaintiff:
Jon R. Noland
Defendant:
Energizer Auto Manufacturing, Inc. as successor-in-interest to STP Products Manufacturing Company, d/b/a STP, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., Shell USA, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
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.
