Cases 1 - 10 of 19
TUCKER et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2021cv13977
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Plaintiff:
JOAN TUCKER and BARRY TUCKER
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Rahall et al v. Awada et al
as 8:2020cv02372
Defendant:
Arlene Shipalesky, DOES 1-10, Glenn Ohno and others
Plaintiff:
Barry Tucker and Monier Rahall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
TUCKER v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 8:2020cv19107
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
BARRY TUCKER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Alonzo Jeter, III v. Barry Tucker
as 20-6456
Respondent / Appellee:
BARRY TUCKER, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
Petitioner / Appellant:
ALONZO COLUMBUS JETER, III
Stokes v. Stirling et al
as 9:2019cv02283
Defendant:
Jones, Nance, Michael McCall and others
Plaintiff:
Charles Stokes
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Charles Michael Stokes v. Bryan P. Stirling et al
as 9:2019cv01992
Plaintiff:
Charles Michael Stokes
Defendant:
Sharon Sims, Michael McCall, Wanda Golden and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jeter v. Tucker, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
as 2:2019cv01945
Petitioner:
Alonzo Columbus Jeter, III
Respondent:
Barry Tucker, Warden of Tyger River Correctional Institution
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rahall, et al v. Cory, et al
as 8:2019cv00748
Plaintiff:
MONIER RAHALL and Barry Tucker
Defendant:
YEHIA AWADA, Arlene Shipalesky, Glenn Ohno and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 fd
Eddie Dogan v. Barry Tucker
as 19-6249
Petitioner / Appellant:
EDDIE DEAN DOGAN
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN BARRY TUCKER
Chapman v. Tucker
as 6:2019cv00404
Petitioner:
Anthony B Chapman
Respondent:
Warden Barry Tucker
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.
