Cases 111 - 120 of 5,546
FOSTER v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2011cv66979
Plaintiff:
JAMES M. FOSTER
Defendant:
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
LAVANCE et al v. THE CELOTEX CORPORATION et al
as 2:2011cv67185
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM W. LAVANCE and TAMARA H. LAVANCE
Defendant:
THE CELOTEX CORPORATION , EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. , ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HOLMES v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2011cv67260
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM WATSON HOLMES
Defendant:
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HALL v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2011cv67055
Plaintiff:
MELVIN R. HALL
Defendant:
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CANE et al v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2011cv67049
Plaintiff:
LONNIE CANE and KATHELIA CANE
Defendant:
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
RUTHERFORD et al v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2011cv67072
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM C. RUTHERFORD and MILDRED RUTHERFORD
Defendant:
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MIDGETT v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2011cv67140
Plaintiff:
JOHN T. MIDGETT
Defendant:
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC. , OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION , PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HINSON et al v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION et al
as 2:2011cv67187
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM J. HINSON and NELLIE R. HINSON
Defendant:
OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION , THE CELOTEX CORPORATION , EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HARRELL et al v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2011cv67041
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM A. HARRELL and IRENE HARRELL
Defendant:
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
GANEY et al v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2011cv67060
Plaintiff:
HARRY LEE GANEY and LUCRETIA MAE GANEY
Defendant:
RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
