Cases 1 - 10 of 104
Hopkins v. Indivior, Inc. et al.
as 1:2024sf65404
Plaintiff:
William D. Hopkins
Defendant:
Indivior, Inc., Indivior Solutions, Inc., Indivior PLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Moss v. Indivior, Inc. et al.
as 1:2024sf65050
Plaintiff:
Mr William D Moss
Defendant:
Indivior, Inc., Indivior PLC, Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., F/K/A MonoSol Rx, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Hendricks et al v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC
as 1:2010cv00649
Plaintiff:
Robert Hendricks, Scott Spitler, Nathan Parr and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Layton v. C.R. Bard et al
as 2:2022cv04367
Plaintiff:
William D Layton
Defendant:
C.R. Bard and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv01630
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Lawrence v. C.R. Bard et al
as 2:2021cv05056
Plaintiff:
William D Lawrence
Defendant:
C.R. Bard and Davol Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Amato v. Cook Incorporated et al
as 1:2021cv01171
Defendant:
Cook Medical, LLC, Cook Incorporated, Cook Medical Incorporated and others
Plaintiff:
William D. Amato
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bailey v. Warden, Cuyahoga County Jail
as 1:2020cv02570
Respondent:
Warden Michelle Henry and David Schilling, Jr.
Petitioner:
William D. Bailey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Bailey v. Warden, Cuyahoga County Jail
as 2:2020cv05834
Respondent:
Warden, Cuyahoga County Jail
Petitioner:
William D. Bailey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Evans et al v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
as 2:2020cv05222
Defendant:
C R Bard Incorporated and Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Plaintiff:
April M Evans and William D Evans, III
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
