Cases 1 - 10 of 18
Yang et al v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv00478
Plaintiff:
The Estate of Damon Yang and Betty Yang
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00018
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Yang v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
as 2:2022cv03217
Petitioner:
Sung S. Yang
Respondent:
Alvis House and Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Lane v. Haozhi et al
as 1:2022cv01485
Plaintiff:
John K. Lane
Defendant:
Yang Haozhi, Yang Liang, Ge Bing and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv00677
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Not Classified By Court:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
SAT Technology, Inc. et al v. CECO Environmental Corp.
as 1:2018cv00907
Plaintiff:
SAT Technology, Inc., Hong-Yang Tseng and Superior Air Treatment Technology, Inc.
Defendant:
CECO Environmental Corp.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
City of Massillon v. Parrish et al
as 5:2015cv02520
Plaintiff:
City of Massillon
Defendant:
Joseph Yang Parrish and TransAm Trucking, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Zhang v. Clevenger et al
as 1:2015cv00720
Plaintiff:
Yang Zhang
Defendant:
Nicole Clevenger and Roderick Byers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Yang et al v. Noble et al
as 3:2014cv00034
Plaintiff:
Choon Sik Yang and Kuk Sul Do Central Academy, Inc.
Defendant:
John Noble and John Doe 1-100
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Yang v. Aduca et al
as 3:2013cv02667
Petitioner:
Jin Soun Yang
Respondent:
Rebecca Aduca, Eric H. Holder, Jr., John Sandweg and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
