Cases 21 - 27 of 27
Conway, D.C. et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al
as 5:2015cv04905
Plaintiff:
Jerry L. Conway, D.C. , Corey Musselman, M.D. , The San Antonio Orthopaedic Group, L.L.P. and others
Defendant:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Anthem, Inc., Health Care Service Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337 Sherman-Clayton Act
Sokolich v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services et al
as 1:2014cv00338
Plaintiff:
Julio Sokolich
Defendant:
Presbyterian Healthcare Services , Jayne McCormick, John Liljestrand and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
McCormick et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al
as 1:2011cv05640
Plaintiff:
Brian McCormick , Vito Spillone and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Defendant:
Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Bank plc, Citibank, NA and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
McCormick et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al
as 1:2011cv02706
Plaintiff:
Brian McCormick and Vito Spillone
Defendant:
Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Bank PLC, CitiBank, NA and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Watson Carpet & Floor Covering v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., et al
as 09-6173
Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
WATSON CARPET & FLOOR COVERING, INC.
Defendant - Appellee:
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
CARPET DEN, INC. and RICK MCCORMICK
Watson Carpet & Floor Covering v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., et al
as 09-6140
Plaintiff - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
WATSON CARPET & FLOOR COVERING, INC.
Defendant - Appellee:
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
CARPET DEN, INC. and RICK MCCORMICK
Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. et al
as 3:2009cv00487
Plaintiff:
Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc.
Defendant:
Mohawk Industries, Inc., Carpet Den, Inc. and Rick McCormick
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust
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.
