Cases filed in the Fourth Circuit Courts
Cases 41 - 50 of 83
Southern Coal Corporation et al v. Norfolk Southern Corporation et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2011cv00002
Plaintiff: A & G Coal Corporation and Southern Coal Corporation
Defendant: Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract
Jessica Curtis v. Norfolk Southern Railway Compa We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 10-1829
Plaintiff - Appellant: JESSICA CURTIS, TIMOTHY ARD, JAMES SPLAWN and others
Petitioner: CHRISTY T. DALTON
Movant - Appellant: DW, through her Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne; Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne, WILLIAM HALL, ROOSEVELT WALKER and others
Movant: ROBERT M. BELL, ERWIN LEIZERMAN, MICHAEL J. LEIZERMAN and others
Defendant - Appellee: NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant: NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10
Elizabeth Cutright v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
as 10-1559
Plaintiff - Appellant: ELIZABETH R. CUTRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Plaintiff: TINA BEVINGTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, JESSICA CURTIS, TIMOTHY ARD and others
Petitioner: CHRISTY T. DALTON
Movant: ROBERT M. BELL, ERWIN LEIZERMAN, MICHAEL J. LEIZERMAN and others
Defendant - Appellee: NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant: NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10, Norfolk Southern Railway Crewmembers and Residents of South Carolina
Clark v. Norfolk Southern Corporation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2010cv00133
Plaintiff: David Clark
Defendant: Norfolk Southern Corporation
Cause Of Action: Diversity - Notice of Removal
Inez Sanders v. Norfolk Southern Corporation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 10-1189
Plaintiff - Appellant: INEZ SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DOROTHY NEWSOME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and GARLAN HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff: JAMES WALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and RITA HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Defendant - Appellee: NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, a Virginia Corporation
Defendant - None: MIKE FORD and JAMES THORNTON
Christy Dalton v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
as 09-2366
Petitioner - Appellant: CHRISTY T. DALTON
Plaintiff: ELIZABETH R. CUTRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, TINA BEVINGTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, JESSICA CURTIS and others
Defendant - Appellee: NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant - None: NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10
Movant - None: ROOSEVELT WALKER, DW, through her Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne; Guardian ad Litem Darlene Champagne, WILLIAM HALL and others
Christy Dalton v. Norfolk Southern Corporation
as 09-2367
Plaintiff - Appellant: CHRISTY T. DALTON
Plaintiff: ELIZABETH R. CUTRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JOHN C. BEVINGTON, JESSICA CURTIS and others
Defendant - Appellee: NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION
Defendant - None: JOHN DOES 1-10
Mutual and Federal Insurance Co. v. Norfolk Southern Corporation et al
as 1:2009cv02479
Plaintiff: Mutual and Federal Insurance Co.
Defendant: Norfolk Southern Corporation and Rukert Terminals Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question
B&W Lumber Company Inc v. Norfolk Southern Corporation et al
as 3:2009cv00950
Plaintiff: B&W Lumber Company Inc
Defendant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk Southern Railway Company and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 08-1980
Appellant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - None: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Type: Civil Rights Jobs

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.


Why Is My Information Online?