Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv01540
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2023cv00116
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Crosswhite v. Thomson Reuters Corp.
as 6:2021cv00015
Defendant:
Thomson Reuters Corp.
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Crosswhite
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Stephen Young v. University of Hawaii, et al
as 20-1572
Defendant / Appellee:
MICHIGAN BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS, STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEPHEN YOUNG
Stephen Young v. University of Hawaii, et al
as 20-1464
Defendant / Appellee:
MICHIGAN BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS, STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
STEPHEN YOUNG
United States of America et al v. Celgene Corporation
as 2:2010cv03165
Defendant:
American Society of Health System Pahrmacists Inc, Celgene Corporation, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Beverly Brown, California, Chicago and others
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act
Clouding IP LLC v. Thomson Reuters Corp. et al
as 1:2012cv01645
Plaintiff:
Clouding IP LLC
Defendant:
Thomson Reuters Corp. and West Services Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Suresh Dakshinamoorthy v. National Association of Boards, et al
as 11-1644
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SURESH DAKSHINAMOORTHY, R.PH.
Defendant - Appellee:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BOARDS OF PHARMACY and CARMEN CATIZONE
Defendant:
PROMETRIC, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE and THOMSON REUTERS CORP.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv02191
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
