Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Tole v. AFAM Concept, Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv05635
Defendant:
Beauty Bell Enterprises LLC, AFAM Concept, Inc. doing business as JF Labs, Inc., Avlon Industries and others
Plaintiff:
Pervis Tole
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Chicago Joe's Tea Room, LLC, et al v. Village of Broadview, et al
as 22-3194
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHICAGO JOE'S TEA ROOM, LLC and PERVIS CONWAY, individually
Defendant / Appellee:
VILLAGE OF BROADVIEW, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, HENRY VICENIK, FITZGERALD MULLINS and others
Chicago Joe's Tea Room, LLC, et al v. Village of Broadview, et al
as 16-1989
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHICAGO JOE'S TEA ROOM, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company and PERVIS CONWAY, individually
Defendant - Appellee:
VILLAGE OF BROADVIEW, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, HENRY VICENIK, FITZGERALD MULLINS and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv01760
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
Redmond v. Chicago Police Department et al
as 1:2013cv05783
Plaintiff:
Pervis C Redmond, Jr
Defendant:
Chicago Police Department and Unknown Others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Redmond v. Chicago Police Department et al
as 1:2013cv01355
Plaintiff:
Pervis C Redmond, Jr
Defendant:
Chicago Police Department and Unknown Others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
HOPSON v. ORAL SURGUREY AND MAXILLOFACIAL GROUP et al
as 4:2012cv00072
Defendant:
SAM AGUAIR, AUTO-SMART, MIKE BENNET and others
Plaintiff:
DEANDRE HOPSON
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Chicago Joe's Tea Room, LLC et al v. The Village of Broadview, et al
as 1:2007cv02680
Plaintiff:
Chicago Joe's Tea Room, LLC and Pervis Conway
Defendant:
Village of Broadview, The, Henry Vicenik, Fitzgerald Mullins 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.
