Cases 11 - 20 of 35
Baker v. Baughman, et al.
as 2:2017cv00340
Plaintiff:
Timothy Ray Baker
Defendant:
David Baughman, Phillips, R. Kendall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wade v. Lee et al
as 1:2016cv07571
Plaintiff:
Steven Lee Wade
Defendant:
Lee, Jarlath Heveran, Daniel Pater and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sawyer v. Matthews, et al
as 5:2015cv00514
Plaintiff:
Donnell Sawyer
Defendant:
David P. Matthews, Julie Rhoades, Matthews & Associates and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SAWYER et al v. MATTHEWS et al
as 1:2015cv01541
Defendant:
JAMIE R. KENDALL, DAVID P. MATTHEWS, MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES and others
Plaintiff:
DONNELL SAWYER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Kendall v. Caliber Homes Loans, Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv03752
Defendant:
CEO Joe Anderson and Caliber Homes Loans, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Bernice R. Kendall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Stastny v. Rive et al
as 3:2014cv02820
Plaintiff:
Leonard Stastny
Defendant:
Lyndon Rive, Peter Rive, Elon Musk and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Homer Tyrone Lewis v. J. D. Soto et al
as 2:2014cv04594
Defendant:
Butler, Butler, Dr. C. Cornell and others
Plaintiff:
Homer Tryone Lewis
Homer Tyrone Lewis v. J. D. Soto et al
as 2:2013cv09371
Defendant:
Dr. C. Granlund, Dr. R. Kendall and J. D. Soto
Plaintiff:
Homer Tyrone Lewis
William Mach v. Charles Ryan, et al
as 13-15219
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM CHAPMAN MACH
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES L. RYAN and DENNIS R. KENDALL
Joel Hughes v. Dennis Chenail, et al
as 12-16522
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN E. LOCKHART, DO, DENNIS R. KENDALL, Health Services Division Administrator, KEVIN LEWIS, MD and others
Defendant:
DORA B. SCHRIRO, Warden, STATE OF ARIZONA, only for state tort claims, CHARLES L. RYAN, Arizona Department of Corrections Director and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOEL M. HUGHES
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.
