Cases 31 - 40 of 52
Coyote Logistics, LLC v. Christopher Shaw
as 1:2018cv01259
Plaintiff:
Coyote Logistics, LLC
Defendant:
Christopher Shaw
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv00005
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Toxics Action Center, Inc. et al v. Casella Waste Systems, Inc. et al
as 4:2017cv40089
Plaintiff:
Toxics Action Center, Inc. , Environment America, Inc. , Martha Bergstrom and others
Defendant:
Casella Waste Systems, Inc., Southbridge Recycling & Disposal Park, Inc. and The Town of Southbridge
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1365
Shaw v. Franco et al
as 3:2017cv00887
Plaintiff:
Christopher Shaw
Defendant:
Franco and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Shaw v. Arpaio
as 2:2017cv01573
Defendant:
Joseph M Arpaio
Plaintiff:
Brandon Christopher Shaw
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv02588
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Huffman et al v. Jam Productions, Ltd. et al
as 1:2016cv08616
Plaintiff:
Justin Huffman , Gregor Kramer , Archie Yumping and others
Defendant:
Jam Productions, Ltd. , Event Productions, Inc. , Standing Room Only Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Sanders et al v. Combe Incorporated et al
as 3:2016cv00628
Plaintiff:
Pierre Sanders , Everton Johnson , Darrell Cottman and others
Defendant:
Combe Incorporated , Combe Products, Inc. , Combe Laboratories, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Shaw v. Doe et al
as 3:2015cv01382
Plaintiff:
Christopher Shaw
Defendant:
John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Drury v. State of Missouri et al
as 5:2015cv06098
Plaintiff:
James A Drury
Defendant:
State of Missouri, Western Missouri Correctional Center, Leonard Arron and others
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.
