Cases 71 - 79 of 79
SHECKTOR et al v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. et al
as 4:2009cv01570
Plaintiff:
Andrew M. Shecktor and Jean B. Marshman
Defendant:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Louisville ladder, inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability
SHECKTOR et al v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. et al
as 2:2009cv00466
Plaintiff:
ANDREW M. SHECKTOR and JEAN B. MARSHMAN
Defendant:
WAL-MART STORES, INC. and LOUISVILLE LADDER, INC.
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Hunting v. BASF Corporation
as 4:2008cv03651
Plaintiff:
Andrew M Hunting
Defendant:
BASF Corporation
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Buck v. Blaine et al
as 8:2008cv01471
Plaintiff:
Travis N Buck
Defendant:
Charles T Blaine, James E Singleton, Phillip Bryant and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
RATCLIFFE v. ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv72435
Plaintiff:
ANDREW M. RATCLIFFE, JR.
Defendant:
ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC., AEROQUUIP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AEROQUIP CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
BEARD v. ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv71016
Plaintiff:
ANDREW M BEARD
Defendant:
ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC., AEROQUUIP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AEROQUIP CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
RATCLIFF v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al
as 2:2008cv68662
Plaintiff:
ANDREW M. RATCLIFF
Defendant:
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FORD MOTOR COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
The People of the State of New York, by Andrew M. Cuomo et al v. Merck & Co, Inc.
as 1:2007cv08434
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of New York, by Andrew M. Cuomo and The City of New York
Defendant:
Merck & Co, Inc., Merck & Co, Inc. and Merck & Co, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Bunn v. Walsh et al
as 3:2007cv01467
Plaintiff:
Brian Bunn
Defendant:
John M. Walsh and Andrew M. Miszler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
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.
