Cases 11 - 18 of 18
Russell v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as WVS/2:14-cv-30592
Plaintiff:
Sharon Russell
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Russell v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as 2:2014cv30592
Plaintiff:
Sharon Russell
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
RUSSELL et al v. MENARD, INC. et al
as 1:2013cv01400
Defendant:
MENARD, INC.
MCO:
POLYGROUP LIMITED
Plaintiff:
GREGORY RUSSELL and SHARON RUSSELL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
RUSSELL v. VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
as 2:2013cv00047
Plaintiff:
SHARON RUSSELL
Defendant:
VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
United States of America v. Russell et al
as 2:2010cv14279
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Alva David Russell, Sharon Russell and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7401
Bennett v. State of Louisiana, et al
as 07-31189
Plaintiff - Appellant:
SUZANNE BENNETT, on behalf of Sharon Russell, on behalf of Ariane Ray, on behalf of Paris Ray, on behalf of Tia Ray, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, JOHNNIE JONES, CHRISTMAS, Sergeant and others
RUSSELL v. WAL MART STORES INC
as 2:2007cv00175
Plaintiff:
SHARON RUSSELL
Defendant:
WAL MART STORES INC and CLH AND SONS INC
Thirdparty_defendant:
CLH AND SON INC
Thirdparty_plaintiff:
WAL MART STORES INC
Counter_claimant:
CLH AND SON INC
Counter_defendant:
WAL MART STORES INC
Cross_claimant:
CLH AND SONS INC
Cross_defendant:
WAL MART STORES INC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
LOVESTORM v. BARTNER et al
as 2:2007cv04447
Plaintiff:
SHAKIR LOVESTORM
Defendant:
MARTIN BARTNER, GEORGE ARWADY, JOHN F. DENNAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
