Cases 11 - 20 of 23
Tunnell v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 2:2016cv03910
Plaintiff:
Teresa Marie Tunnell
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
US v. Under Seal
as 15-4569
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Party-in-Interest - Appellant:
UNDER SEAL
Defendant:
PEDRO ANTHONY ROMERO CRUZ, a/k/a Payaso, JOSE LOPEZ TORRES, a/k/a Peluca, a/k/a Medio Polvo, a/k/a Peluquin, a/k/a Jose Alejandro Donez, a/k/a Lopez Manuel Torres, JAIME ROSALES VILLEGAS, a/k/a Demente, a/k/a Lil Demente and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2014cv04261
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Savage v. Tunnel Ridge, LLC et al
as 5:2014cv00095
Plaintiff:
Joshua Savage
Defendant:
Tunnel Ridge, LLC , Alliance Coal, LLC and Alliance Resource Partners, L.P.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Clavesilla et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al
as 2:2013cv32920
Plaintiff:
Amber Clavesilla , Martha Martin , Jo Strauch and others
Defendant:
Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc. , Ethicon, LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Tunnel v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
as 2:2013cv26916
Plaintiff:
Karen Tunnel
Defendant:
American Medical Systems, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Tunnell et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation
as 2:2013cv10468
Plaintiff:
Karen Tunnell and John W. Tunnell
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Tunnell v. STATE OF MARYLAND
as 1:2011cv03651
Petitioner:
Robert Joseph Tunnell
Respondent:
STATE OF MARYLAND
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tunnell v. Warden
as 1:2011cv00071
Petitioner:
Robert Tunnell
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv00282
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
