Cases 21 - 30 of 30
Joeffre Kolosky, et al v. Honorable Michael J. Davi
as 12-2033
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Joeffre Kolosky
Defendant - Appellee:
Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, acting in official capacity as a Judge
Movant - Appellee:
Lee A. Lastovich, Huyen Le Phan and Gregg Marlowe Corwin
Davis v. Astrue
as 6:2012cv03108
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff:
Michael H Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Kolosky v. Davis
as 0:2011cv03648
Plaintiff:
Joeffre Kolosky
Defendant:
Michael J. Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Michael Davis v. Ray Hobb
as 10-2623
Petitioner - Appellant:
Michael A. Davis
Respondent - Appellee:
Ray Hobbs, Interim Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Hansen
as 4:2009cv00459
Plaintiff:
Eugene S Hansen, II, Eugene S Hansen, II, Eugene S Hansen, II and others
Defendant:
Per Mar Security Services and Michael Duffy
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act
Michael Davis v. John F. Ault, II, Warden Anamo
as 09-1291
Petitioner:
Michael A. Davis, Sr.
Respondent:
Jerry Burt and John Ault, II
Davis v. Norris
as 5:2008cv00189
Plaintiff:
Michael A Davis
Defendant:
Larry Norris
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Davis v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
as 2:2008cv02051
Plaintiff:
Michael E. Davis
Defendant:
Social Security Administration Commissioner
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Alexander et al v. Guidant Corporation et al
as 0:2007cv02897
Plaintiff:
David Alexander, David Alexander, Wayne Bachemin and others
Defendant:
Guidant Corporation, Guidant Sales Corporation, Cardiac Pacemakers Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 -pip-Diversity-Personal Injury, Product Liability
Davis et al v. Medtronic USA Inc.
as 0:2007cv01631
Plaintiff:
Michael W Davis and Cheryle Lynn Davis
Defendant:
Medtronic USA Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 -pip-Diversity-Personal Injury, Product Liability
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.
