Cases 11 - 20 of 26
CLARK v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv04174
Defendant:
AERO HOLDING LLC, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AERO INTERMEDIATE LLC and others
Plaintiff:
NATHANIEL CLARK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ARIBUABO et al v 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv00893
Plaintiff:
IRA HORNE, MICHAEL COSGROVE, DUSTIN PRICE and others
Defendant:
3M COMPANY and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Aribuabo et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2019cv00475
Plaintiff:
Ira Horne, Michael Cosgrove, Dustin Price and others
Defendant:
3M Company, Aearo Technologies LLC and Aearo Technologies, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SPENCE et al v. PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT (M.D.PA.) et al
as 5:2018cv05277
Defendant:
THOMAS DARR, PENNSYLVANIA SUPREM COURT (E.D.PA.), C.J. THOMAS SAYLOR and others
Plaintiff:
ANDRE MITCHELL, ANTHONY LYONS, AESHA LYONS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
United States of America v. Clark
as 18-1693
Appellee USA:
United States of America
Defendant:
Raysean Clark, AKA TP, AKA Tadpole, Tommy Eugene Clark, AKA Boo and Kayla Renee Combs
Defendant - Appellant:
Nathaniel Clark
Nathaniel Clark v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 18-40517
Petitioner - Appellant:
NATHANIEL CLARK
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Clark v. Davis
as 1:2018cv00027
Petitioner:
Nathaniel Clark
Respondent:
Lorie Davis
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Dilbeck v. Clark
as 2:2017cv02173
Plaintiff:
Glynn Dilbeck
Defendant:
Nathaniel Clark
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Dilbeck v. Clark et al
as 5:2017cv05116
Plaintiff:
Glynn Dilbeck and Shane Cook
Defendant:
Nathaniel Clark and Hayes Minor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Nathaniel Clark v. Bristol Fiberlite Industries, Inc.
as 8:2016cv00641
Defendant:
Bristol Fiberlite Industries, Inc. and DOES
Plaintiff:
Nathaniel Clark
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.
