Cases 61 - 69 of 69
SMITH v. UNIROYAL, INC. et al
as 2:2009cv74386
Plaintiff:
LEONARD JAMES SMITH
Defendant:
UNIROYAL, INC., UNIROYAL, INC., UNIROYAL HOLDING, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
BARLOW et al v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO et al
as 2:2008cv87142
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM BARLOW, DEAN SONGS, JERRY DUHAMEL and others
Defendant:
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO and CRANE CO
Cause Of Action: 00 U.S.C. § 0000
SMITH v. A.R. WILFLEY & SONS et al
as 2:2008cv84711
Plaintiff:
JAMES SMITH
Defendant:
A.R. WILFLEY & SONS, ACF VALVES, ACF INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Smith v. Norris
as 4:2008cv01284
Plaintiff:
James Smith
Defendant:
Charles Norris
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
SMITH v. MONSANTO COMPANY et al
as 2:2008cv79488
Plaintiff:
JAMES SMITH
Defendant:
MONSANTO COMPANY, GARLOCK, INC., GULF BELTING & GASKET CO., INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
SMITH v. MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO. et al
as 2:2008cv69942
Plaintiff:
JAMES SMITH
Defendant:
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO., AMERICAN OPITCAL CORPORATION, THE BENDIX CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
SMITH v. ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2008cv66098
Plaintiff:
JAMES SMITH and JAMES SMITH
Defendant:
ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
ATKINSON et al v. VAPOR CORPORATION
as 2:2007cv73829
Plaintiff:
RONALD ATKINSON, INEZ DORMAN, DAVID LASSEN and others
Defendant:
VAPOR CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
SMITH et al v. A P GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2007cv69641
Plaintiff:
JAMES SMITH and ELLEN SMITH
Defendant:
A P GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC., ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., ASBESTOS CLAIMS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
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.
