Cases 11 - 20 of 256
SMITH v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
as 1:2023vv01958
Petitioner:
CLYDE SMITH
Respondent:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 300 Vaccine Injury Act
SMITH v. USA
as 1:2023cv01998
Plaintiff:
SHARISSA SMITH
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
Canfor Corporation et al v. United States
as 1:2023cv00188
Plaintiff:
Canfor Corporation, Canadian Forest Products, Ltd. and Canfor Wood Products Marketing, Ltd.
Defendant:
United States
Not Yet Classified:
Tolko Industries Ltd., Tolko Marketing & Sales Ltd., Gilbert Smith Forest Products Ltd. and others
Smith v. McDonough
as 24-1028
Claimant:
KITTOM SMITH, JR.
Respondent / Appellee:
DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Kutt v. Apple Inc.
as 20-1757
Defendant / Appellee:
ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., NVIDIA CORPORATION, NOKIA CORPORATION and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MERS KUTT
Smith v. McDonough
as 23-2213
Claimant:
DANIEL R. SMITH
Respondent / Appellee:
DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Dawson v. US
as 23-1923
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOE L. DAWSON, CONRAD C. COX, MARY R. COX, Trustees of the Conrad C. Cox Trust No. 1 and the Mary R. Cox Trust No. 1 and others
Plaintiff:
JASON DIAL, TRAVIS DIAL, M. LEE JUENEMANN and others
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES
CREEKSIDE PARK OWNERS' ASSOCIATION et al v. USA
as 1:2023cv00772
Plaintiff:
CREEKSIDE PARK OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, 6TH AND UNION CENTER LLC, COGAN REAL PROPERTY, LLC and others
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
SMITH v. USA
as 1:2023cv01008
Plaintiff:
SHARISSA SMITH
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
LONDON v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
as 1:2023vv00929
Petitioner:
JACQUELINE LONDON and KEVIN SMITH
Respondent:
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 300 Vaccine Injury Act
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.
