Cases 1 - 8 of 8
POWELL v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2021cv19131
Plaintiff:
LOIS D. POWELL
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. (F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.)
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Powell et al v. Smith et al
as 3:2015cv02148
Plaintiff:
John D. Powell and Laurie Powell
Defendant:
Martin S. Smith and Heartland Express, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
PANDOLFO et al v. MCKESSON CORPORATION et al
as 2:2013cv05824
Plaintiff:
FRANK PANDOLFO , VICTOR MANUEL PARGAS , ZAIDA M. PARKER and others
Defendant:
MCKESSON CORPORATION and SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
POWELL v. GAF CORPORATION et al
as 2:2010cv79962
Plaintiff:
EMMET D. POWELL
Defendant:
GAF CORPORATION , ROCKWOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY , PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
POWELL v. GAF CORPORATION et al
as 2:2010cv79959
Plaintiff:
EMMET D. POWELL
Defendant:
GAF CORPORATION , ROCKWOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY , PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
POWELL v. GAF CORPORATION et al
as 2:2010cv79963
Plaintiff:
EMMET D. POWELL
Defendant:
GAF CORPORATION , ROCKWOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY , PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
POWELL v. GAF CORPORATION et al
as 2:2010cv79965
Plaintiff:
EMMET D. POWELL
Defendant:
GAF CORPORATION , ROCKWOOL MANUFACTURING COMPANY , PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
POWELL v. AC & S, INC. et al
as 2:2007cv62658
Plaintiff:
THORNTON D. POWELL, THORNTON D. POWELL and THORNTON D. POWELL
Defendant:
AC & S, INC., AC & S, INC., A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
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.
