Cases 71 - 80 of 91
Dixon v. Singh et al
as 3:2011cv00374
Plaintiff:
Robert Lee Dixon
Defendant:
Jatinder K. Singh, Michael Prizmich and Terri Turner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JOHNSON v. DIXON
as 2:2010cv07259
Plaintiff:
WALTER JOHNSON
Defendant:
ROBERT V. DIXON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Robert Eugene Dixon v. Arcola Washington-Adduci
as 2:2010cv06568
Petitioner:
Robert Eugene Dixon
Respondent:
Arcola Washington-Adduci
CRIDER et al v. ASBESTOSPRAY CORP. et al
as 2:2010cv63269
Plaintiff:
ROBERT A. DIXON
Defendant:
AC AND S, INC. (ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY), ASBESTOSPRAY CORP., FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
DIXON et al v. A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2009cv86272
Plaintiff:
ROBERT A. DIXON and ROBERT A. DIXON
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
DIXON v. U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL)
as 2:2009cv88650
Plaintiff:
ROBERT A. DIXON
Defendant:
U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL)
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
DIXON V. MEAD, ET AL.
as 2:2009cv87626
Plaintiff:
ROBERT A. DIXON
Defendant:
A.P. SERVICES, INC., A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, AMERICAN STANDARD, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2009cv21774
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12182 Americans with Disabilities Act
Dixon v. Malouf
as 2:2009cv00792
Plaintiff:
Robert J. Dixon
Defendant:
Waldy Malouf
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Robert Dixon v. R. Mitchell
as 08-8412
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT H. DIXON
Defendant - Appellee:
R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View Correctional Institution and NURSE PRESNELL, RN, Mountain View Correctional Institution
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.
