Cases 51 - 60 of 60
Clervrain v. Shafer et al
as 1:2022cv00001
Defendant:
Peter B. Rutledge, David Shafer, Yang Yuanqing and others
Plaintiff:
Manetirony Clervrain
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
SHAFER v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 8:2020cv92595
Plaintiff:
DAVID SHAFER
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SHAFER v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 8:2020cv26047
Plaintiff:
DAVID SHAFER
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Grimm v. Raw Story Media, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv00654
Plaintiff:
Eric C. Grimm
Defendant:
Raw Story Media, Inc., The Herald Publishing Company, LLC, MLive Media Group and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SHAFER v. KEY ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, LLC
as 1:2015cv04143
Plaintiff:
DAVID SHAFER
Defendant:
KEY ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Madden et al v. Charleston County South Carolina
as 2:2014cv00208
Plaintiff:
Tracy Madden , Greg Carney , Frank Broccolo and others
Defendant:
Charleston County South Carolina
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Shafer et al v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
as 2:2013cv28430
Plaintiff:
Estelle Shafer and David Shafer
Defendant:
American Medical Systems, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Shafer v. Colvin
as 2:2013cv00929
Plaintiff:
David Shafer
Defendant:
Carolyn W Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
OMURA V SHAFER
as 10-1357
Appellee:
Alexander Epple, Aurelian Dodoc, David Shafer and others
Appellant:
Yasuhiro Omura, Yasuhiro Omura, Yasuhiro Omura and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2007cv00264
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (IMMIGRATION)
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.
