Cases 11 - 20 of 27
DUNCAN JR v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2020cv17632
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES DUNCAN JR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Pippins v. United States of America
as 3:2019cv00876
Respondent:
United States of America
Petitioner:
Charles Duncan Pippins
Interested Party:
Joseph M. Farrell, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Duncan v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2017cv02788
Plaintiff:
Charles Duncan
Defendant:
3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Duncan v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc et al
as 3:2016cv02447
Plaintiff:
Charles Duncan
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics Inc and Premier Orthopaedic Sales Inc
Pecial_master:
Special Master
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Duncan v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as ILN/1:16-cv-06924
Plaintiff:
Charles Duncan
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Premier Orthopaedic Sales, Inc.
Duncan v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
as 1:2016cv06924
Plaintiff:
Charles Duncan
Defendant:
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Premier Orthopaedic Sales, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Duncan v. Janssen Research & Development LLC et al
as 2:2015cv06543
Plaintiff:
Charles Duncan
Defendant:
Janssen Ortho LLC, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Duncan v. Acrux, Ltd. et al
as 1:2014cv06127
Plaintiff:
Charles Duncan
Defendant:
Acrux, Ltd., ACRUX DDS PTY LTD, Acrux Pharma Pty Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Nails v. State of Alabama et al
as 4:2014cv00234
Plaintiff:
Angela Nails
Defendant:
State of Alabama, Mike West, James M Owens and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Duncan v. Thaler
as 4:2013cv00133
Petitioner:
Alvin Charles Duncan
Respondent:
Rick Thaler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
