Cases 11 - 20 of 209
Scott v. Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation et al
as 3:2023cv17502
Plaintiff:
Charles Scott
Defendant:
Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Scott v. GlaxoSmithKline et al
as 3:2023cv13952
Plaintiff:
Charles Scott
Defendant:
GlaxoSmithKline, Patheon Inc., Pfizer Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
HERRING v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv03914
Plaintiff:
CHARLES SCOTT HERRING, IV
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Scott v. Colbert
as 3:2023cv00111
Plaintiff:
Charles Scott
Defendant:
Warden Unknown Colbert
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
MILLER v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv24907
Plaintiff:
CHARLES SCOTT MILLER
Defendant:
3M COMPANY and 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Scott v. Fisher
as 22-1764
Petitioner:
THOMAS CHARLES SCOTT
Respondent:
LANDON BIRD, WARDEN and RAYTHEL FISHER, WARDEN
USA v. Robert Scott
as 22-35716
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
ROBERT CHARLES SCOTT
Beverley West v. Charles Jackson, et al
as 22-2536
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Beverley West
Defendant / Appellee:
Charles Scott Jackson and Circuit Court of Carroll County, Arkansas
West v. Jackson et al
as 3:2022cv03026
Plaintiff:
Beverley West
Defendant:
Charles Scott Jackson and Circuit Court of Carroll County Arkansas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Sourang v. Scott et al
as 1:2022cv00536
Petitioner:
Mawloud Sourang
Respondent:
Charles Scott and G. Hill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
