Cases 31 - 40 of 95
SHELTON v. COOK INCORPORATED et al
as 1:2018cv03949
Defendant:
COOK INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL LLC and WILLIAM COOK EUROPE APS
Plaintiff:
STEVEN SHELTON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ROOR INTERNATIONAL BV et al v. HEAD DOCTORS SMOKE SHOP LLC et al
as 1:2018cv03929
Defendant:
JASON SHELTON, HEAD DOCTORS SMOKE SHOP, LLC and HEAD DOCTORS SMOKE SHOP LLC
Plaintiff:
SREAM, INC. and ROOR INTERNATIONAL BV
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1051
ANKH-EL v. ALTICE
as 1:2018cv03452
Defendant:
BRIAN MURPHY, MARC ROTHENBERG, ANN FLANNELLY and others
Plaintiff:
MENES ANKH-EL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MERCADO v. PARKS et al
as 1:2018cv02860
Plaintiff:
ANGELITO C. MERCADO and ANGELITO MERCADO
Defendant:
SHELTON SGT., CHIPPER PARKS, OFFICER PIERCE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILSON v. MYERS et al
as 1:2018cv02386
Defendant:
GREENLEE, SEARLES, STILLABOWER and others
Plaintiff:
RANDY WILSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHELTON v. DOWNEY et al
as 3:2018cv00125
Plaintiff:
JAMES SHELTON
Defendant:
NICK DOWNEY and ACTION SAFETY SOLUTIONS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv01676
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2018cv00097
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
CHAPO et al v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, INDIANA et al
as 4:2018cv00091
Defendant:
DARRELL M. AUXIER, WARREN AUXIER, LAURA BOLDERY and others
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH CHAPO, SHERRY CHAPO and DEPUTY BIG SHOT, LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
PRITT v. CORRECT CARE SERVICES et al
as 1:2017cv02664
Defendant:
AGENTS, BRIAN CARTER, H CLARK and others
Plaintiff:
STEVEN W. PRITT
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.
