Cases 121 - 130 of 264
Azuma v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
as 3:2016cv00956
Defendant:
Aetna Life Insurance Company
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Azuma
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Jeffrey Shaw v. Federal Corrtl Inst Pollock, et al
as 16-30583
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JEFFREY C. SHAW
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE POLLOCK, MR. SMITH, MR. POWELL and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2016cv00087
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Shaw v. United States Of America
as 0:2016cv61019
Plaintiff:
Terrence C. Shaw
Defendant:
United States Of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Davis et al v. Alabama Limestone County et al
as 2:2016cv00120
Plaintiff:
John H Davis , Shelia D Davis and Eric S Davis
Defendant:
Judge Jeanne W Anderson, Judge James W Woodroof, Jr, Athens City Schools and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bostrom v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
as 3:2016cv00596
Plaintiff:
Keith A. Bostrom
Defendant:
Prudential Insurance Company of America
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Rodak v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
as 3:2016cv00527
Defendant:
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Plaintiff:
Kristopher J. Rodak
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Chess v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
as 3:2016cv00500
Plaintiff:
Janelle E. Chess
Defendant:
Prudential Insurance Company of America
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv01905
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
United States of America v. Shaw et al
as 2:2016cv00109
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Robert C. Shaw, Rose O. Shaw, Saint Andrews Ivy, B.T. and others
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7403
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.
