Cases 21 - 30 of 145
WAINWRIGHT v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv01928
Plaintiff:
JEREMY JOHN MICHAEL WAINWRIGHT
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
HARPEL v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv23607
Plaintiff:
JOHN MICHAEL HARPEL
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
JONES v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv20315
Plaintiff:
JOHN MICHAEL JONES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Dejesus v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al (Orange County)
as 6:2022cv01601
Petitioner:
John Michael Dejesus
Respondent:
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF FLORIDA, Secretary, Department of Corrections and Attorney General, State of Florida
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BIGLEY v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv15295
Plaintiff:
JOHN MICHAEL BIGLEY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
SLOTA v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv14747
Plaintiff:
JOHN MICHAEL SLOTA
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
MATTINGLY v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv16284
Plaintiff:
JOHN MICHAEL MATTINGLY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
SIDWELL v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv13645
Plaintiff:
JOHN MICHAEL SIDWELL
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
GRAHAM v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv09160
Plaintiff:
JOHN MICHAEL GRAHAM
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Glenn v. United States of America
as 1:2022cv21682
Plaintiff:
Christopher Rennie Glenn, Fernando Albergue, Derek John Michael and others
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence
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.
