Cases 31 - 40 of 363
Rebecca Stelman, et al v. AMZN, et al
as 23-80017
Respondent:
REBECCA STELMAN, MARK OCHOA, IAN COLEMAN and others
Petitioner:
AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.
Defendant:
TEM EXPRESS LOGISTICS LLC, dba TEML dba Temex Logistics, TORITSE ORUBU, J DOE ORUBU and others
Crampton v. Lilley
as 9:2023cv00226
Petitioner:
Adam C. Crampton
Respondent:
Superintendent Lilley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Crampton v. Lilley
as 1:2023cv01274
Petitioner:
Adam C. Crampton
Respondent:
Superintendent Lilley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LILLEY v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv01643
Plaintiff:
GARRETT LILLEY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Ingrassia v. Lilley
as 1:2023cv00586
Petitioner:
Ralph Ingrassia
Respondent:
Lynn J. Lilley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Martinez v. Lilley et al
as 9:2023cv00042
Plaintiff:
Sabas Martinez
Defendant:
Lynn J. Lilley, Lefield, Captain T. Melville and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Simms v. Lilley
as 22-2995
Petitioner / Appellant:
Keith Simms
Respondent / Appellee:
Superintendent Lynn Lilley
Stelman et al v. Amazon.com Inc et al
as 2:2022cv01632
Defendant:
ALDEN RADONCIC, Amazon.com Inc, Amazon Logistics Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Rebecca Stelman, Mark Ochoa, Ian Coleman and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal
Abdullah v. Albany Med. Center, D.O.C.C.S. et al
as 9:2022cv01145
Plaintiff:
Ashraf Abdullah
Defendant:
Albany Med. Center, D.O.C.C.S., C. Morrow, S. Fredensburgh and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Frazier v. Lilley
as 22-2785
Petitioner / Appellant:
Davaj Frazier
Respondent / Appellee:
Lynn Lilley, Superintendent of Woodbourne Correctional Facility
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.
