Cases 11 - 20 of 23
McDonald et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
as 4:2016cv00528
Plaintiff:
Kevin McDonald
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., Ethicon Women's Health and Urology and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Huff et al v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
as 4:2014cv01946
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Plaintiff:
John W. Huff and Leona Huff
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Whorton v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
as 5:2014cv05073
Plaintiff:
Shawn Whorton
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jones v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
as 3:2013cv05136
Plaintiff:
Ronnie W. Jones
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Svoboda, et al v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al
as 4:2013cv00034
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc. , The Washington University and Robert L. Barrack
Plaintiff:
Marilyn Svoboda and Michael Svoboda
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle
Bevis v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
as 0:2011cv03586
Plaintiff:
Larry Bevis
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Rogers et al v. Smith & Nephew Inc
as 3:2011cv00238
Plaintiff:
Martha Rogers and John Rogers
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Froehlich v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
as 4:2011cv00832
Plaintiff:
Marie Froehlich
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rossum et al v. I-Flow Corporation et al
as 0:2009cv03714
Plaintiff:
Kimberly I. Rossum, Kimberly I. Rossum, Randy Rossum and others
Defendant:
I-Flow Corporation, Kimberly Clark Corporation, Smith & Nephew and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 -pip-Diversity-Personal Injury, Product Liability
Frazier v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. et al
as 4:2009cv01613
Plaintiff:
Justin W Frazier
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc., Stryker Corporation, Breg, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
