Cases 51 - 60 of 416
BOWEN v. LI
as 1:2023cv20399
Plaintiff:
BENJAMIN ARTHUR BOWEN
Defendant:
XINGZHAO LI, AIDA TOP and YANG LEI LEI
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
CreeLED, Inc. v. Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule "A"
as 9:2023cv80149
Plaintiff:
CreeLED, Inc.
Defendant:
Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule "A", Coolman Hardware Co., Limited, Dongguan City Wei Gou E-Commerce Co., Ltd. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
BOWENS v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv01929
Plaintiff:
WILLIE LEYNONE BOWENS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2023cv00067
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Bowen v. United States of America
as 3:2023cv00026
Plaintiff:
Patricia Bowen
Defendant:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
Freeman v. Bowen et al
as 3:2022cv01264
Plaintiff:
Jahmal C. Freeman
Defendant:
Sergeant Bowen, Officer Carpenter, Officer Rieks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BOWENS v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv22823
Plaintiff:
ADRIAN BOWENS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
BOWEN v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv22841
Plaintiff:
LEROY BOWEN
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
BOWEN v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv20523
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER BOWEN
Defendant:
3M COMPANY and 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
BOWENS v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv19998
Plaintiff:
CHANDLER MARION BOWENS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
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.
