Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Adams v. Aviation Technical Services
as 21-30390
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Lawrence Adams, Timothy Cowan, Joseph Debartola and others
Defendant / Appellee:
Aviation Technical Services, Incorporated
Aberdeen City Council v. Under Armour, Incorporated
as 19-2032
Defendant / Appellee:
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED, PNC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, BYRON K. ADAMS, JR. and others
Defendant:
BRAD DICKERSON and ANTHONY W. DEERING
Plaintiff:
MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, BEN STENGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, BRIAN BREECE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL, as Administrating Authority for the North East Scotland Pension Fund and BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Petitioner:
WILLIAM DENT, BERNARDO MEDELLIN, SACRAMENTO CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv00562
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Thrasher v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al
as MA/1:15-cv-13178
Plaintiff:
Karen W. Thrasher
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corp. and Lifecell Corporation
Smith v. USA, et al
as 08-10288
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HAROLD W SMITH, III
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KAREN W GARDNER, Individually and in her capacity as an Internal Revenue Service Employee, WALLACE G BANKS, Individually and in his capacity as Settlement Officer for Internal Revenue Service and others
Smith v. United States of America et al
as 3:2007cv00313
Plaintiff:
Harold W Smith, III
Defendant:
United States of America, Karen W Gardner, Wallace G Banks and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
