Cases 21 - 30 of 162
Williams v. Muskegon County 60th District Court et al
as 1:2023cv00189
Plaintiff:
Torrance Leon Williams
Defendant:
Muskegon County 60th District Court, Muskegon County Circuit Court, Michael J. Poulin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Cole v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2023cv00335
Plaintiff:
Matthew Robert Cole and Matthew Cole
Defendant:
C.R. Bard, Inc., Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., Does 1 through 10 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Mayes v. Roberts et al
as 5:2022cv01553
Plaintiff:
Tecumseh Mondez Mayes
Defendant:
Matthew Roberts, Joseph Porpst, Sandra Ligon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
WHITE v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv18238
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW ROBERT WHITE
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Kessman v. Roberts, et al
as 22-1280
Plaintiff / Appellant:
BRADLEY C. KESSMAN
Defendant / Appellee:
SGT. MATTHEW ROBERTS, CAPTAIN MOLL, Larimer County Jail and AMANDA JARMAN, H.S.A., Health Services Administrator Larimer County Jail
Roberts v. Staley et al
as 4:2022cv00788
Plaintiff:
Matthew Roberts
Defendant:
John Staley, Kristie Flud, Kevin McCoy and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PUSATERI v. USA
as 1:2022cv01172
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW ROBERT PUSATERI
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491 Tucker Act
MOSS v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv13586
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW ROBERT MOSS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
HUNTER v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv11527
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW ROBERT HUNTER
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Young v. State of Oregon
as 3:2022cv00990
Petitioner:
Matthew Robert Young
Respondent:
State of Oregon
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
