Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Jones v. Baptist Health South Florida, Inc.
as 1:2016cv23029
Plaintiff:
Amelia Jones
Defendant:
Baptist Health South Florida, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2611
Jones et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation
as 2:2015cv12474
Plaintiff:
Amelia Jones and Timothy Jones
Defendant:
Boston Scientific Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Jones v. Rohm & Haas Co. et al
as 5:2009cv00711
Plaintiff:
Amelia Jones, Amelia Jones and Amelia Jones
Defendant:
Rohm & Haas Co., Morton International, Inc. and Morton Retired Employees Group Insurance Plan
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Moses Moore, et al v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al
as 08-4553
Plaintiff - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
MOSES MOORE, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, ROSS J. SATTERFIELD, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, BART J. KOCHIS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES HALL, JR., on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated and WILLIAM WANDRYCH, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
Defendant - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC. and MORTON RETIRED EMPLOYEES GROUP INSURANCE PLAN
Defendant - Appellee:
DOES 1-20
Moses Moore, et al v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al
as 08-4545
Plaintiff - Appellee Cross-Appellant:
MOSES MOORE, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, ROSS J. SATTERFIELD, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, BART J. KOCHIS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated and others
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JAMES HALL, JR., on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated and WILLIAM WANDRYCH, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
Defendant - Appellant Cross-Appellee:
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, MORTON INTERNATIONAL, INC. and MORTON RETIRED EMPLOYEES GROUP INSURANCE PLAN
Defendant:
DOES 1-20
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.
