Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Victor D. Menashe v. Biogen Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv10479
Petitioner:
Nadia Shash, Roman Suleymanov, Leonard Shapiro and others
Defendant:
Biogen Inc., Michael R. McDonnell, Jeffrey D. Capello and others
Plaintiff:
Victor D. Menashe and Amjad Khan
Shapiro v. Biogen Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv10017
Defendant:
Alfred W. Sandrock, Jr., Michael Vounatsos, Biogen Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Leonard Shapiro
Petitioner:
Nadia Shash and The Biogen Investor Group
Victor D. Menashe v. Biogen Inc. et al
as 2:2020cv10399
Defendant:
Biogen Inc., Michael R. McDonnell, Jeffrey D. Capello and others
Plaintiff:
Victor D. Menashe
WASHINGTON v. BARNHART et al
as 3:2017cv00070
Plaintiff:
HENRY UNSELD WASHINGTON
Defendant:
JONATHAN BARNHART, DR. ROBINSON, RICHARD IRWIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv02456
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Elbana v. U.S. Bank Home Mortgage et al
as 1:2015cv00714
Plaintiff:
Emad M Elbana
Defendant:
U.S. Bank Home Mortgage, Cuyahoga County Sheriff Dept. , Nancy R. McDonnell and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Roulhac v. McDonnell et al
as 3:2013cv00848
Plaintiff:
Clarence Roulhac, Jr.
Defendant:
R. McDonnell, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Harold W. Clarke and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jose Lisboa, Jr. v. Nancy Fuerst, et al
as 11-4285
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSE C. LISBOA, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
NANCY A. FUERST, DIANE M. PALOS, DEENA R. CALABRESE and others
Lisboa v. Fuerst et al
as 1:2011cv01861
Plaintiff:
Jose C. Lisboa, Jr.
Defendant:
Nancy A. Fuerst , Diane M. Palos , Deena R. Calabrese and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pratt v. McDonnell
as 8:2009cv00310
Plaintiff:
Kevon A. Pratt and Kevon A. Pratt
Defendant:
John R. McDonnell, John R. McDonnell and John R. McDonnell
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
