Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Haslam v. Mclaughlin et al
as 1:2022cv11268
Plaintiff:
Debra Haslam
Defendant:
William D. Mclaughlin, David F. Shea, Jr., Paul C. Diminico and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
In re: Bennie Adams, et al v. Richard Michael DeWine, et al
as 21-3330
Plaintiff / Appellee:
DOUGLAS L. COLEY, DENNY OBERMILLER, JASON ROBB and others
Intervenor / Appellee:
VON CLARK DAVIS, CALVIN MCKELTON, ASHFORD THOMPSON and others
Defendant / Appellant:
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, EDWIN C. VOORHIES, JR., Managing Director of Operations, ODRC, MIKE DEWINE, Governor, State of Ohio and others
Plaintiff:
BENNIE ADAMS
Not Classified By Court:
In re: OHIO EXECUTION PROTOCOL LITIGATION
Martin v. Sheppard (INMATE 1)
as 2:2020cv00502
Plaintiff:
Daniel Rashad Martin
Defendant:
Ronnie T. Sheppard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: Angelo Fears, et al v. John Kasich, et al
as 16-3149
:
In re: OHIO EXECUTION PROTOCOL LITIGATION
Petitioner - Appellant:
ANGELO FEARS, RICHARD BAYS, ALVA E. CAMPBELL, JR. and others
Respondent - Appellee:
JOHN KASICH, Governor, State of Ohio, GARY C. MOHR, Director, ODRC, DONALD MORGAN, Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and others
Herriman v. Con-way Truckload, Inc et al
as 2:2014cv02395
Plaintiff:
Stevie Ray Herriman
Defendant:
Con-Way Truckload, Inc. and John T Sheppard
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1396
Bobby Sheppard v. Norm Robinson
as 13-3900
Petitioner - Appellant:
BOBBY T. SHEPPARD
Respondent - Appellee:
NORM ROBINSON, Warden
KING v. CHRISTIE et al
as 1:2013cv03433
Plaintiff:
SHARROD KING
Defendant:
C. CHRISTIE, GARY LANIGAN, C. RAY HUGHES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Bobby Sheppard v. Norm Robinson
as 13-3165
Petitioner - Appellant:
BOBBY T. SHEPPARD
Respondent - Appellee:
NORM ROBINSON
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.
