Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Cook v. Saul
as 4:2021cv00832
Defendant:
Andrew Saul
Plaintiff:
Michael Douglas Cook
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv16508
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
DOUGLAS et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2017cv05346
Plaintiff:
PATRICIA DOUGLAS and MICHAEL DOUGLAS
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON , JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. , IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
DOUGLAS v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. et al
as 1:2017cv00724
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DOUGLAS
Defendant:
DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SHIELDS v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. et al
as 1:2015cv05386
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DOUGLAS SHIELDS
Defendant:
DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
USA v. Michael Byrd
as 10-4686
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
MICHAEL DOUGLAS BYRD, a/k/a STAX
DOUGLAS v. FIBREBOARD CORPORATION
as 2:2010cv70276
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DOUGLAS
Defendant:
FIBREBOARD CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Michael Patton v. Superintendent, et al
as 10-2782
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL DOUGLAS PATTON
Defendant - Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT, SCI Cresson, DA YORK CTY and ATTY GEN PA
Patton v. Cameron et al
as 3:2009cv01178
Petitioner:
Michael Douglas Patton
Respondent:
Kenneth Cameron, York County District Attorney and Tom Corbett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DOUGLAS v. ATLANTICARE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER et al
as 1:2009cv02453
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DOUGLAS
Defendant:
ATLANTICARE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, M. YASER MOURAD, JOHN DOES 1-5 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
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.
