Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Bradley v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation et al
as 1:2023cv02770
Plaintiff:
Robin Bradley
Defendant:
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, Cargill Meat Logistics Solutions, Inc. and Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation doing business as Cargill Food Distribution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Schwartz v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
as 1:2023cv01986
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Schwartz
Defendant:
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Stenson v. Edmonds, et al
as 23-1020
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SEAN STENSON
Defendant / Appellee:
KEITH EDMONDS and CARGILL MEAT LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Stenson v. Edmonds, et al
as 22-1285
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SEAN STENSON
Defendant / Appellee:
KEITH EDMONDS and CARGILL MEAT LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Biurques v. Cargill, Incorporated
as 6:2022cv01051
Plaintiff:
Victoriano Biurques
Defendant:
Cargill, Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Stenson v. Edmonds et al
as 1:2018cv01968
Defendant:
Keith Edmonds and Cargill Meat Logistics Solutions, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Sean Stenson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Gordon et al v. The 3M Company et al
as 1:2018cv01065
Plaintiff:
Robert Duran, Murray Smith, William Ray and others
Defendant:
Kidde PLC, Inc., UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., The 3M Company and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 t
Marquez v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
as 6:2017cv01297
Plaintiff:
Jose Marquez
Defendant:
Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Henderson v. Cargill, Incorporated
as 5:2012cv04015
Plaintiff:
James J. Henderson
Defendant:
Cargill, Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Gardner v. Cargill Incorporated
as 5:2011cv01063
Plaintiff:
Roy Brent Gardner
Defendant:
Cargill Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
