Cases 51 - 60 of 601
Nelson v. Guilford County, North Carolina et al
as 4:2023cv00496
Plaintiff:
Michael Paul Nelson
Defendant:
Guilford County, North Carolina, Danny H Rogers, Lieutenant W Grimes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
DERRY v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv02414
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL PAUL DERRY
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
ALLEN v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv01865
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL PAUL ALLEN
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Contreras v. TDCJ Unit James V Allred Medical Staff
as 7:2023cv00004
Plaintiff:
Michael Paul Contreras
Defendant:
TDCJ Unit James V Allred Medical Staff
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WJ Holding Limited Partnership v. Anderson
as 6:2022cv04479
Plaintiff:
WJ Holding Limited Partnership
Defendant:
Michael Paul Anderson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Conversion
Michael Paul Streeter v. Donaldson CF Warden, et al
as 22-13349
Petitioner / Appellant:
MICHAEL PAUL STREETER
Respondent / Appellee:
DONALDSON CF WARDEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ALABAMA
Price v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
as 2:2022cv01663
Plaintiff:
Michael Paul Price
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
US v. Michael Puzey
as 22-7070
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY, a/k/a Big Pete
PAUL v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv17520
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PAUL
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Nalls v. Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office et al
as 3:2022cv00243
Plaintiff:
Larry Nalls
Defendant:
Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Mathis H. Heck, Lee C. Falke and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
