Cases 11 - 20 of 44
BOWERS v. COOK INCORPORATED et al
as 1:2017cv03304
Plaintiff:
JAMES BOWERS
Defendant:
COOK INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL LLC and WILLIAM COOK EUROPE APS
317) 237-1000 (fax:
John T. Schlafer, John T. Schlafer and John T. Schlafer
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv02731
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv02197
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Bowers v. United States of America
as 2:2016cv14256
Plaintiff:
Tyrone James Bowers
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
In re: Tyrone Bowers
as 16-13799
Petitioner:
In re: TYRONE JAMES BOWERS
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Bowers v. Janssen Research & Development LLC f/k/a Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development LLC et al
as 2:2016cv10422
Plaintiff:
James Bowers
Defendant:
Janssen Research & Development LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Albers et al v. Janssen Research & Development LLC et al
as 2:2016cv06692
Plaintiff:
Rodney Albers , Jack Amick , James Baker and others
Defendant:
Janssen Research & Development LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
US v. James Johnson
as 16-6244
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
JAMES BOWERS JOHNSON
Bowers v. AbbVie, Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv09886
Plaintiff:
James Bowers
Defendant:
AbbVie, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Products LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bowers v. David et al
as 3:2015cv03167
Plaintiff:
Larry James Bowers
Defendant:
David, Han and E. Tootell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
