Cases 21 - 30 of 32
EFFINGER ET AL., V. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ET AL.
as 1:2015cv00448
Plaintiff:
JAMES A. EFFINGER and NANCY EFFINGER
Defendant:
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ALFA LAVAL, INC., ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
KEEVER v. ARMSTRONG
as 1:2015cv00382
Plaintiff:
ANITA KEEVER
Defendant:
ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ARMSTRONG v. CITY OF GREENSBORO, et al
as 1:2015cv00282
Plaintiff:
LAMONTE BURTON ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
CITY OF GREENSBORO, J. F. WHITT, DAVID SPAGNOLA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MULLIS v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al
as 1:2012cv00459
Defendant:
MERITOR, INC., GARDNER DENVER, INC., HINO MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC. and others
Plaintiff:
CAROLYN MULLIS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ARMSTRONG V. BARDILL
as 1:2013cv01140
Plaintiff:
CORY V. ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
MARK D. BARDILL
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
RHODES et al v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 1:2013cv00864
Plaintiff:
JAMES NATHAN RHODES and PAMELA SUSAN RHODES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, A.O. SMITH CORPORATION , AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ARMSTRONG et al v. THE VILLAGE OF PINEHURST et al
as 1:2013cv00407
Defendant:
THE VILLAGE OF PINEHURST , OFFICER JERRY MCDONALD , OFFICER TINA S. SHEPPARD and others
Plaintiff:
THE ESTATE OF RONALD H. ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
VAUGHAN v. 3M COMPANY, et al
as 1:2012cv01231
Plaintiff:
GENEVA D. VAUGHAN
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
ARMSTRONG v. USA
as 1:2012cv00013
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
DONALD TIBERIO ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ARMSTRONG v. LIGHTSEY
as 1:2011cv00285
Defendant:
DR. LIGHTSEY
Plaintiff:
JOE BENTON ARMSTRONG, JR.
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.
