Cases 1 - 8 of 8
In re: Hydrogen Peroxide Anititrust, et al, et al
as 10-2110
Plaintiff - Appellee:
In re: HYDROGEN PEROXIDE ANITITRUST LITIGATION
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MCSHARES INC
Defendant - Appellee:
SOLVAY CHEM INC, SOLVAY SA, SOLVAY AMER INC and others
D R Ward Constr Co v. Mitsubishi Rayon America, Inc.
as 08-3358
Plaintiff - Appellee:
D R WARD CONSTR CO, ANNA C. FURNEY and DAVID PEARMAN
Defendant - Appellee:
MITSUBISHI RAYON AMERICA, INC.
Defendant:
ROHM & HAAS CO, ATOFINA CHEM INC, CROMPTON CORP and others
Not Party - Appellant:
OWEN F. SILVIOUS
BURG v. ROHM & HAAS CO et al
as 2:2008cv04162
Plaintiff:
LESLIE A BURG
Defendant:
ROHM & HAAS CO, ARKEMA, INC., FERRO CORP. and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ZEBROWSKI v. ROHM & HAAS COMPANY et al
as 2:2008cv04161
Plaintiff:
CHUCK ZEBROWSKI
Defendant:
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, ARKEMA, INC., FERRO CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
MILLER v. ROHM & HAAS CO. et al
as 2:2008cv03701
Plaintiff:
BARTLEY C. MILLER
Defendant:
ROHM & HAAS CO., ARKEMA, INC., FERRO CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
DEFREN v. ROHM & HAAS COMPANY et al
as 2:2008cv03702
Plaintiff:
SHARON DEFREN
Defendant:
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, ARKEMA, INC, FERRO CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
In Re: Plastics Additives, et al, et al
as 08-1419
Plaintiff:
DR WARD CONSTR CO, ANNA C. FURNEY and DAVID PEARMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
Defendant:
ROHM & HAAS CO, ATOFINA CHEM INC, FKA Elf Atochem, CROMPTON CORP and others
Not Party - Appellant:
OWEN F. SILVIOUS
EDISON WETLANDS ASSOCIATION, INC. et al v. AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv00419
Plaintiff:
EDISON WETLANDS ASSOCIATION, INC. and ROBERT SPIEGEL
Defendant:
AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS, INC., AKZO NOBEL INC. and BASELL USA, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses
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.
