Cases 11 - 19 of 19
POWELL v. GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION et al
as 2:2009cv89041
Plaintiff:
JAMES E. POWELL and ELIZABETH POWELL
Defendant:
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, ASBESTOSPRAY CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2009cv01719
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Type:
Civil Rights
Bertrand et al v. National Tax Inc. et al
as 1:2009cv00377
Plaintiff:
Jimmy Bertrand, Nicola Bertrand, Corey Koenig and others
Defendant:
National Tax Inc., Gas Recovery Partners 2 GP, GRP2 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
United States of America v. Calvert et al
as 8:2009cv00618
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
George B. Calvert, Gregory Guido, Ronald Fontenont and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Baines v. Powell et al
as 1:2008cv00252
Plaintiff:
Wayne Baines
Defendant:
Elizabeth Powell and Marcia Freeman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Gatlin v. United States of America
as 8:2008cv00002
Plaintiff:
Elizabeth Powell Gatlin
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
Bardin v. Potter et al
as 2:2007cv00212
Plaintiff:
Ellen Bardin
Defendant:
John E. Potter, John H. Adams, Donald LeMay and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Elizabeth Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al
as 07-4097
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ELIZABETH POWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
WAL-MART STORES, INC., LEROY SCHUETZ, STEVEN BERTSCHY and others
Powell v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al
as 07-3847
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ELIZABETH POWELL
Defendant - Appellee:
WAL-MART STORES, INC., LEROY SCHUETZ, STEVEN BERTSCHY and others
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.
