Cases 31 - 40 of 288
Armstrong v. Ward et al
as 4:2022cv01290
Plaintiff:
Christopher C Armstrong
Defendant:
Christina Ward, Scott Westlacht and Robert Shively
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv00506
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Employment)
Peter Ackermann v. Gene Shively et al
as 2:2022cv08729
Plaintiff:
Peter Ackermann
Defendant:
Gene Shively and Does 1-10
Shively v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
as 1:2022cv00283
Plaintiff:
Lawrence E Shively
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security Administration and Social Security Administration, Commissioner of
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Jeremiah Moore v. District Attorney Montgomery County, et al
as 22-2642
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JEREMIAH MOORE
Defendant / Appellee:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY COUNTY, KEVIN R. STEELE, RICHARD H. BRADBURY, JR. and others
SHIVE v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv17208
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY SHIVE
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
EnVue Telematics, LLC v. Shive
as 2:2022cv00321
Plaintiff:
EnVue Telematics, LLC
Defendant:
Daniel Shive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Shively v. CR Bard, Inc. et al
as 2:2022cv03067
Plaintiff:
Jak M. Shively
Defendant:
CR Bard, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Anete Rosario et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 2:2022cv05035
Plaintiff:
Anete Rosario, Deanna Rose, Robin Ross and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
SHIVELY v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv09252
Plaintiff:
JEREMY DAVID SHIVELY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
