Cases 41 - 50 of 53
Cornelius Winfrey v. Mary Beth Lane, et al
as 12-2482
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CORNELIUS D. WINFREY
Defendant - Appellee:
MARY BETH LANE, SANDRA J. HILL and MARY ROGERS
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Hawkins Leather Company, LLC et al
as 1:2012cv00050
Plaintiff:
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Defendant:
Hawkins Leather Company, LLC, John Brock and Mary Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ROGERS-BELL et al v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION et al
as 2:2011cv03736
Plaintiff:
MARY ROGERS-BELL and OSSIE BELL
Defendant:
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION , GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC, GLAXO WELLCOME UK LTD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Rogers-Bell et al v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline et al
as 9:2011cv80478
Plaintiff:
Mary Rogers-Bell and Ossie Bell
Defendant:
SmithKline Beecham Corporation , Glaxosmithkline PLC, Glaxo Wellcome UK LTD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
as 4:2011cv00041
Plaintiff:
Tenisha Marie Rogers
Defendant:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Marie Rogers v. A.o. Smith, et al.
as PAE/2:09-CV-79028
Plaintiff:
Marie Rogers
Defendant:
A.o. Smith
Marie Rogers v. Abco Industries, Inc., et al.
as PAE/2:08-CV-72502
Plaintiff:
Marie Rogers
Defendant:
Abco Industries, Inc
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv00583
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Rogers v. Sterling Heights, City of et al
as 2:2009cv10217
Plaintiff:
Ann Marie Rogers
Defendant:
Sterling Heights, City of, David M Vinson, Michael Reese and others
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
ROGERS v. ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv72502
Plaintiff:
MARIE ROGERS
Defendant:
ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC., AEROQUUIP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AEROQUIP CORPORATION 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.
