Cases 11 - 20 of 24
Newkirk v. Consolidated Rail Corporation et al
as 1:2016cv00332
Plaintiff:
Robert Newkirk
Defendant:
Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Consolidated Rail Corporation
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
Lyvers v. Newkirk et al
as 1:2015cv00096
Plaintiff:
Eric Todd Lyvers
Defendant:
James Newkirk, Wally Ritter, Jordan Jones and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Newkirk v. International Automotive Components Group North America, Inc.
as 1:2013cv00078
Plaintiff:
John Newkirk
Defendant:
International Automotive Components Group North America, Inc. and IAC Dayton, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Newkirk v. Commissioner Social Security
as 2:2012cv00285
Plaintiff:
William Newkirk
Defendant:
Commissioner Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Jousma et al v. Thomas J. Moyle, Jr., Inc. et al
as 2:2012cv00106
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Jousma , Mark Kela , Darin Burcar and others
Defendant:
Thomas J. Moyle, Jr., Inc., Thomas J. Moyle, Jr., Andrew J. Moyle and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2012cv00109
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
USA v. Deandre Newkirk
as 12-3105
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
DEANDRE L. NEWKIRK
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv01357
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
David Rawls v. City of Euclid, et al
as 10-4099
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID R. RAWLS
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF EUCLID, CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, EUCLID POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Rawls v. Euclid, City of et al
as 1:2010cv00213
Plaintiff:
David R. Rawls
Defendant:
Euclid, City of, Cleveland Police Department, Euclid Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
