Cases 81 - 86 of 86
EVANS et al v. EAGLE PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2007cv62060
Plaintiff:
GEORGE EVANS, GEORGE EVANS, GEORGE EVANS and others
Defendant:
EAGLE PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., OWENS-CORNING CORPORATION, CELOTEX CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
THOMPSON et al v. ACANDS, INC. et al
as 2:2007cv62788
Plaintiff:
CHARLES H. THOMPSON, SR., CHARLES H. THOMPSON, SR., CHARLES H. THOMPSON, SR. and others
Defendant:
ACANDS, INC., MCCORMICK ASBESTOS CO., PORTER-HAYDEN CO., INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
OLIVER et al v. ACANDS, INC. et al
as 2:2007cv62812
Plaintiff:
VERNON L. OLIVER, VERNON L. OLIVER, LORRAINE OLIVER and others
Defendant:
ACANDS, INC., ACANDS, INC., ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
GRUPP et al v. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO. et al
as 2:2007cv62830
Plaintiff:
ALVIN I. GRUPP and JEAN R. GRUPP
Defendant:
OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., COHART REFRACTORIES CO., JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
SNIDER et al v. MCCORMICK ASBESTOS COMPANY et al
as 2:2007cv62795
Plaintiff:
LINDA L. SNIDER, LINDA L. SNIDER, REX SNIDER and others
Defendant:
MCCORMICK ASBESTOS COMPANY, HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
NICHOLLS v. OWENS-CORNING CORPORATION et al
as 2:2007cv62124
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE W. NICHOLLS and LAWRENCE W. NICHOLLS
Defendant:
OWENS-CORNING CORPORATION, ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
ThirdParty Plaintiff:
ACANDS, INC., ACANDS, INC., ACANDS, INC. and others
ThirdParty Defendant:
MANVILLE PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST DISTRIBUTION PROCESS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
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.
