Cases 1 - 10 of 50
Nolze et al v. 3M Company et al
as 2:2023cv02836
Defendant:
Du Pont De Nemours Inc, 3M Company, AGC Chemicals Amercas Inc and others
Plaintiff:
William Nolze, Stephen Walter Miller, Randy Paul Miltier and others
Petitioner:
Arthur Thomas Noonan, Jr
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal-Personal Injury
Tedder et al v. 3M Company et al
as 2:2023cv02220
Plaintiff:
William Tedder, Maureen Cobb, Richard Tyler and others
Defendant:
3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC Chemicals Americas Inc, Amerex Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
US v. Charles Avery
as 22-7179
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
CHARLES LEE AVERY
Avery v. USA
as 3:2022cv00182
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Avery
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Harris v. United States of America
as 5:2021hc02087
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Harris
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Avery v. Adams
as 1:2021cv00017
Respondent:
P. Adams
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Avery
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Avery v. USA
as 3:2020cv00555
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Avery
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Smoot v. USA-2255
as 8:2020cv01553
Petitioner:
Charles Lee Smoot
Respondent:
USA-2255
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Jose Obando-Segura v. William Barr
as 19-7736
Respondent / Appellee:
THOMAS HOMAN, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, CHARLES LEE, Assistant Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement, CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and others
Petitioner / Appellant:
JOSE ANDRES OBANDO-SEGURA
Lee v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
as 1:2019cv00020
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Charles Lee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
