Cases 61 - 70 of 389
BOOTH v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv03542
Plaintiff:
VAN BOOTH
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-10367
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
BOOTHE v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv01965
Plaintiff:
BRIANNA BOOTHE
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Booth v. Douglas County et al
as 1:2023cv00326
Plaintiff:
John David Booth
Defendant:
Douglas County, Georgia Douglas County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Deputy Matthew Christopher Atkins and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Animaccord Ltd. v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A
as 1:2022cv24187
Plaintiff:
Animaccord Ltd.
Defendant:
The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A, LALIPOK, Dofarrin and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00508
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Booth v. Lumpkin County Board of Commissioners
as 2:2022cv00237
Plaintiff:
Sharon Booth
Defendant:
Lumpkin County Board of Commissioners
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Denial of Overtime Compensation
Booth v. Sampson
as 1:2022cv04350
Plaintiff:
Delroy T. Booth
Defendant:
Warden Sampson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Alfonso v. Booth et al
as 0:2022cv61850
Plaintiff:
Livan Alfonso
Defendant:
Bryan David Booth and D & D Services LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Auto Negligence
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2022cv02210
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.
