Cases 31 - 40 of 243
Waterman v. GCP Applied Technologies Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00583
Plaintiff:
Marc Waterman
Defendant:
GCP Applied Technologies Inc., Peter A. Feld, Simon Bates and others
Newman v. GCP Applied Technologies Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00545
Plaintiff:
Fred Newman
Defendant:
GCP Applied Technologies Inc., Peter A. Feld, Simon Bates and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00148
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Hemry, et al v. Ross, et al
as 22-8002
Plaintiff / Appellee:
BRETT HEMRY, Individually, and as Next Friend of F.M.H. and GENALYN HEMRY, individually and as next friend of F.M.H., a minor child
Defendant / Appellant:
BRADLEY M. ROSS and MEHRAN AZIZIAN, Agents and Servants of the National Park Service, United States Department of Interior
Defendant:
ROBERT R. COOKE, BRETT M. TILLERY, Agents and Servants of the Sheriff of Park County Wyoming and JOHN DOE 10
Ross v. Fiss et al
as 1:2021cv02080
Plaintiff:
Tarahjay M Ross
Defendant:
Lt. Fiss, C.O. Heinbaugh, C.O. Thomas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Stein v. GCP Applied Technologies, Inc. et al
as 1:2022cv00436
Plaintiff:
Shiva Stein
Defendant:
GCP Applied Technologies, Inc., Peter A. Feld, Simon Bates and others
Ross v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
as 1:2021cv11655
Petitioner:
Ashton M Ross
Respondent:
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Ross v. Smith et al
as 1:2021cv01994
Plaintiff:
Tarahjay M Ross
Defendant:
Captain Steve Smith, Lt. Greg Mendenhall, Lt. Richard Armermann and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ross v. McCarthy
as 1:2021cv11635
Petitioner:
Ashton M Ross
Respondent:
Captain McCarthy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
ROSS v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
as 2:2021cv03795
Plaintiff:
JOAN M. ROSS
Defendant:
MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
