Cases 1 - 10 of 132
Adams v. Doe et al
as 1:2024cv02029
Plaintiff:
Robert Christopher Adams and Miles
Defendant:
John Doe, Tom Dart and City of Chicago
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adams v. Dart et al
as 1:2024cv01420
Plaintiff:
Robert Christopher Adams and Miles
Defendant:
Tom Dart, C.O. Guzman and Sgt. Collins
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Adams v. City of Chicago et al
as 1:2024cv01124
Plaintiff:
Robert Christopher Adams and Miles
Defendant:
City of Chicago, John Doe, Director to get names of Doctor's and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Robert Adams v. Zach Cook
as 23-3238
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROBERT CHRISTOPHER ADAMS
Defendant / Appellee:
ZACH COOK, Sgt.
McDaniel v. USA
as 1:2023cv00409
Petitioner:
Robert Christopher McDaniel
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc
WILLS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv10707
Plaintiff:
ROBERT CHRISTOPHER WILLS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv00388
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00627
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination
HEPACO v Robert Christopher Evance, et al
as 2:2023cv02337
Plaintiff:
HEPACO, LLC
Defendant:
Robert Christopher Evance and L&T Construction, Inc.
Christopher v. Town Administrator et al
as 1:2023cv10823
Plaintiff:
Robert Christopher and Robert Christopher LaRoche
Defendant:
Town Administrator, Chief of Police, On Duty Supervisor and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 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.
