Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Maresh v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. et al
as 1:2018cv00238
Plaintiff:
Terry Maresh
Defendant:
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., Comet I B.V., Comet II B.V. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv04328
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
Trinity Ind Inc, et al v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
as 12-2059
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TRINITY IND INC and TRINITY INDUSTRIES RAILCAR CORPORATION
Defendant - Appellee:
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY
POGGIOLI et al v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY et al
as 2:2009cv80099
Plaintiff:
THERESA C. POGGIOLI, MARTHA C. SPALDING, DORIS STALLARD and others
Defendant:
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, AGL WELDING SUPPLY CO., INC., ALFA LAVAL,INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
POGGIOLI et al v. A.J. FRIEDMAN SUPPY CO., INC. et al
as 2:2009cv00504
Plaintiff:
THERESA C. POGGIOLI, MARTHA C. SPALDING and DORIS STALLARD
Defendant:
A.J. FRIEDMAN SUPPY CO., INC., A.J. MCNEIL CO.,INC., A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. et al v. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY
as 2:2008cv01709
Plaintiff:
TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC. and TRINITY INDUSTRIES RAILCAR CORPORATION
Defendant:
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY (INC) (IL)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 9607 Real Property Tort to Land
HOWELL v. FMC CORP. et al
as 5:2008cv87036
Plaintiff:
TROY M. HOWELL
Defendant:
FMC CORP., CRANE CO., IMO INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
DRUMMOND v. BADGER EB AND SONS COMPANY et al
as 2:2007cv73858
Plaintiff:
MIRANDA M. DRUMMOND and MIRANDA M. DRUMMOND
Defendant:
BADGER EB AND SONS COMPANY, INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, DIEHL PUMP COMPANY 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.
