Cases 11 - 20 of 57
Ross v. Advanced Correctional Healthcare et al
as 3:2019cv01195
Defendant:
Mary Montgomery, Deputy Locke, Advanced Correctional Healthcare and others
Plaintiff:
LaRon Ross
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Greg Knowles, et al v. ARRIS International Plc
as 19-17468
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM HAWORTH, DAVID S. EISEN, KELLY SMITH and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRIAN ALEXANDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and GREG KNOWLES
Defendant / Appellee:
ARRIS INTERNATIONAL PLC
Not Classified By Court:
INTEL CORPORATION
Lane v. Person
as 3:2019cv00259
Plaintiff:
David H Lane, Jr
Defendant:
Michael Person
Not Yet Classified:
WABASH VALLEY E-FILE (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Arthur Beatty, Sr. v. Michael Person, et al
as 19-1720
Defendant / Appellee:
LISA BERGESON, Medical Director, MICHAEL PERSON, Doctor, TINA COLLINS and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ARTHUR BEATTY, SR.
MERCADO v. PERSON
as 1:2018cv03610
Defendant:
DR. MICHAEL PERSON and MICHAEL PERSON
Plaintiff:
ANGELITO C MERCADO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
George v. Person
as 3:2018cv00850
Defendant:
Dr Person and Dr Michael Person
Plaintiff:
Tyrone Curtis George, Sr
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Leonard Thomas v. Scott Levine, et al
as 18-1059
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LEONARD THOMAS
Defendant - Appellee:
SCOTT LEVINE, ROGER PERRY, DOUGLAS JONES and others
Donald Walton, Jr. v. Michael Person, et al
as 17-3234
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DONALD L. WALTON, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL PERSON, Doctor and CORIZON, LLC, improperly named C.M.S. Medical Services
Pearson v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
as 2:2017cv02679
Plaintiff:
Michael Person
Defendant:
C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
US v. David Person
as 17-6830
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DAVID MICHAEL PERSONS
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.
