Cases 21 - 30 of 39
Samuelson v. Roy
as 0:2013cv03025
Petitioner:
Steven Scott Samuelson
Respondent:
Tom Roy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Samuelson v. Ethicon, Inc.
as 4:2013cv00878
Plaintiff:
Stacy Samuelson
Defendant:
Ethicon, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Hallmark Cards v. Monitor Clipper Partners, et al
as 13-1993
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Hallmark Cards, Incorporated
Defendant - Appellee:
Monitor Clipper Partners, LLC and Adam Doctoroff
Defendant:
Monitor Clipper Equity Partners, II, LP, Monitor Company Group Limited Partnership, Mark Pocharski and others
Hallmark Cards v. Monitor Clipper Partner
as 13-1905
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Hallmark Cards, Incorporated
Defendant - Appellant:
Monitor Clipper Partners, LLC
Defendant:
Monitor Clipper Equity Partners, II, LP, Monitor Company Group Limited Partnership, Mark Pocharski and others
Samuelson v. Minnesota, State of et al
as 0:2012cv03019
Plaintiff:
Steven Scott Samuelson
Defendant:
Minnesota, State of, Itasca, County of, Jon Maturi and others
Mark R. Becker, et al v. International Brotherhood
as 12-3846
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Mark R. Becker, Richard G. Adams, Liphrino Alcenat and others
Defendant - Appellee:
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120
Steven Samuelson v. Tom Roy
as 12-2051
Petitioner - Appellant:
Steven Scott Samuelson
Respondent - Appellee:
Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections for the State of Minnesota
Norton v. Ludeman et al
as 0:2012cv00440
Plaintiff:
Russell Norton
Defendant:
Cal R. Ludeman, Lucinda Jesson, Dennis Benson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Samuelson v. Roy
as 0:2012cv00409
Petitioner:
Steven Scott Samuelson
Respondent:
Tom Roy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Mrozek v. Ringler et al
as 0:2011cv02572
Plaintiff:
Michael Mrozek
Defendant:
Holly Ringler , Jana Skye Brister , Vicky Meyer and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
