Cases 71 - 80 of 312
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. SILVER CREEK SERVICES, INC.
as 2:2017cv01016
Plaintiff:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Defendant:
SILVER CREEK SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1337
CARR v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
as 2:2017cv00950
Plaintiff:
JEREMY CARR
Defendant:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
FABRIS v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
as 3:2017cv00134
Plaintiff:
ROY FABRIS
Defendant:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
BECHER v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
as 2:2017cv00941
Plaintiff:
STEVEN BECHER
Defendant:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
Bardo v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
as 4:2017cv00942
Plaintiff:
Francis L. Bardo
Defendant:
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2017cv02304
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Becher v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
as 1:2017cv00814
Plaintiff:
Steven Becher
Defendant:
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC v. PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR et al
as 4:2017cv00543
Plaintiff:
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
Defendant:
PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR, All Unknown Owners and Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 717
ADAMS v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al
as 3:2016cv02436
Plaintiff:
LEROY ADAMS
Defendant:
The Procter & Gamble Company , RESOLUTE FP US INC. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Cross_claimant:
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Cross_defendant:
LEROY ADAMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
HOUSER v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
as 4:2016cv01517
Plaintiff:
Robert Houser
Defendant:
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
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.
