Cases 71 - 80 of 483
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv03480
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
US v. Lee Smith
as 21-7053
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
LEE THOMAS SMITH
Michael Chieco, et al v. Kia Motors America, Inc., et al
as 21-55580
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL DAVIS, CHARLES KORGER, Jr., DANIEL REILLEY and others
Appellant:
BLEICHMAN & KLEIN
Defendant / Appellee:
KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, FKA Hyundai Motor Company
Smith v. Davol, Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv03397
Defendant:
Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Thomas Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Smith v. Atrium Medical Corporation et al
as 1:2021cv00405
Defendant:
Maquet Cardiovascular US Sales, LLC and Atrium Medical Corporation
Plaintiff:
Thomas Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Bryan E. Glynn v. Mirage Cigar Lounge, LLC et al
as 5:2021cv00604
Plaintiff:
Bryan E. Glynn
Defendant:
Mirage Cigar Lounge, LLC and Carl Thomas Smith doing business as BSocial Media Management
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501
SMITH v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv24055
Plaintiff:
THOMAS SMITH
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
THOMAS v. DC LAW ENFORCEMENT et al
as 1:2021cv01383
Plaintiff:
ELLIS D. THOMAS JR.
Defendant:
DC-MPD, MAMIE OSOLA THOMAS-SMITH, DC SUPERIOR COURT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. FBI IN JOHNSTOWN LAUREL HIGHLANDS et al
as 3:2021cv00074
Plaintiff:
THOMAS SMITH
Defendant:
FBI IN JOHNSTOWN LAUREL HIGHLANDS and DAVE HASSEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HENDERSON v. SMITH et al
as 1:2021cv08967
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, OFFICER ALSTON, THOMAS SMITH and others
Petitioner:
BRIAN HENDERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
