Cases 21 - 30 of 252
Jones v. Strongbridge Biopharma PLC et al
as 1:2021cv07233
Plaintiff:
John Jones
Defendant:
Strongbridge Biopharma plc, John H. Johnson, Garheng Kong and others
Whitfield v. Strongbridge Biopharma plc et al
as 1:2021cv07242
Plaintiff:
Matthew Whitfield
Defendant:
Strongbridge Biopharma plc, Garheng Kong, David Gill and others
Anderson v. Strongbridge Biopharma PLC et al
as 1:2021cv07217
Plaintiff:
Jerome Anderson
Defendant:
Strongbridge Biopharma plc, John H. Johnson, Garheng Kong and others
Hanley v. Strongbridge Biopharma plc et al
as 1:2021cv04757
Plaintiff:
Cory Hanley
Defendant:
Strongbridge Biopharma plc, Garheng Kong, David Gill and others
Yassay v. Strongbridge Biopharma plc et al
as 1:2021cv06802
Plaintiff:
Michael Yassay
Defendant:
Strongbridge Biopharma plc, Garheng Kong, David Gill and others
ROBERSON v. STRONGBRIDGE BIOPHARMA PLC et al
as 2:2021cv03565
Plaintiff:
JEREMY ROBERSON
Defendant:
STRONGBRIDGE BIOPHARMA PLC, JOHN H. JOHNSON, DAVID GILL and others
Peter Barham, et al v. 3M Company, et al
as 21-2784
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Peter Barham, Joshua Bentley, Daran Brown and others
Plaintiff:
Trevor Eriksmoen
Defendant / Appellant:
3M Company and Aearo Technologies LLC
Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al v. United States Forest Service et al
as 9:2021cv00084
Plaintiff:
Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystem Council
Defendant:
United States Forest Service, Randy Moore, Mary Erickson and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Wilderness Watch et al v. Marten et al
as 9:2021cv00082
Plaintiff:
Wilderness Watch, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Wild Swan and others
Defendant:
Leanne Marten and U.S. Forest Service
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 4321
Marten Transport Ltd v. Sacks
as 3:2021cv05506
Plaintiff:
Marten Transport, Ltd and Marten Transport Ltd
Defendant:
Joel Sacks
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
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.
