Cases 31 - 40 of 45
SHAFER v. FIBREBOARD CORPORATION
as 2:2010cv72567
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK R SHAFER
Defendant:
FIBREBOARD CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHAFER
as 2:2010cv00833
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
ROBIN M. SHAFER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
SHAFER v. CAREY CANADA INC et al
as 2:2010cv68421
Plaintiff:
DONALD SHAFER
Defendant:
CAREY CANADA INC , CELOTEX CORPORATION , DURODYNE EAST CORP and others
Intervenor:
VENTFABRICS INC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SHAFER v. AC AND S, INC.(ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY) et al
as 2:2010cv63041
Plaintiff:
JOHNIE SHAFER
Defendant:
AC AND S, INC.(ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY), ASBESTOSPRAY CORP., FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SHAFER v. ASTRUE
as 3:2010cv00056
Plaintiff:
TAMI SHAFER
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
SHAFER v. SEATRAIN LINES, INC.
as 2:2010cv34052
Plaintiff:
GEORGE W. SHAFER
Defendant:
SEATRAIN LINES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
SHAFER v. U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL)
as 2:2009cv88877
Plaintiff:
JOHNIE SHAFER
Defendant:
U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
SHAFER et al v. CAREY CANADA INC et al
as 2:2009cv60769
Plaintiff:
DONALD SHAFER
Defendant:
CAREY CANADA INC, CAREY CANADA INC, CELOTEX CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Shafer v. Astrue
as 4:2008cv01892
Plaintiff:
Mark R. Shafer
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
SHAFER v. NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv83909
Plaintiff:
CAROLYN S. SHAFER
Defendant:
NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., ANCHOR PACKING CO. and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
