Cases 1 - 10 of 54
Rogers v. Safe Federal Credit Union
as 3:2024cv04897
Defendant:
Safe Federal Credit Union
Plaintiff:
Christopher Rogers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rogers v. Hughes et al
as 2:2024cv02063
Defendant:
Sheriff Tom Hughes and Johnson County, Arkansas
Plaintiff:
Christopher Rogers
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Rogers v. Davol Inc et al
as 2:2024cv02746
Defendant:
Davol Inc and CR Bard, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Christopher Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00153
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00025
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003 Job Discrimination
ROGERS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv20839
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER ROGERS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
ROGERS v. 3M COMPANY
as 7:2023cv02727
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER ROGERS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
ROGERS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2023cv00119
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER ROGERS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M Occupational Safety LLC,, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Perez-Zapata et al v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
as 1:2018cv12100
Plaintiff:
Joseph Pignataro, Catherine Phillips, Michael Potts and others
Defendant:
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1605 A Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act 1996
Rogers v. Fagan
as 4:2023cv01770
Petitioner:
Keenan Christopher Rogers
Respondent:
Eric Fagan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
