Cases 1 - 10 of 39
Michael Peterson v. Harold Clarke
as 24-6179
Petitioner:
MICHAEL ANDREW PETERSON
Respondent:
HAROLD W. CLARKE
Kenel Joseph v. K. Williams, et al
as 23-13237
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KENEL JOSEPH
Defendant / Appellee:
K. WILLIAMS, WARDEN, M. NEAL and others
PETERSON v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2023cv03574
Plaintiff:
ANDREW PETERSON
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
PETERSON et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2023cv17218
Plaintiff:
ANDREW PETERSON and THE ESTATE OF TERESA PETERSON
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., LTL MANAGEMENT LLC and others
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Joseph v. Williams
as 2:2023cv00578
Plaintiff:
Kenel Joseph
Defendant:
K. Williams, M. Neal, Derek Snider and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Peterson v. Clarke
as 2:2023cv00346
Petitioner:
Michael Andrew Peterson
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Peterson v. Clarke
as 7:2023cv00417
Petitioner:
Michael Andrew Peterson
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brundage v. Butler et al
as 3:2022cv00224
Plaintiff:
Aramis Brundage
Defendant:
Rex L. Butler, Amy Elizabeth Miller and Andrew Peterson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Peterson et al v. Airtron, Inc.
as 1:2022cv00023
Plaintiff:
Andrew Peterson and Jordan Maraggia
Defendant:
Airtron Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Peterson et al v. Airtron, Inc.
as 3:2022cv00689
Plaintiff:
Andrew Peterson and Jordan Maraggia
Defendant:
Airtron Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
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.
