Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Scott v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC et al
as 3:2022pq03112
Special Master:
Randi Ellis
Plaintiff:
Clarence Scott
Defendant:
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta AG and Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Miller v. Manning
as 6:2017cv01898
Plaintiff:
Clarence Scott Miller
Defendant:
Officer Manning
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clarence Miller v. Willie Eagleton
as 17-6426
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CLARENCE SCOTT MILLER
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIE L. EAGLETON
Clarence Miller v. Kimberly Garvin
as 16-6604
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CLARENCE SCOTT MILLER
Defendant - Appellee:
SGT KIMBERLY GARVIN, a/k/a Kimberly Garvin and DHO MR. ERNEST ROWE
Defendant:
DENNIS PATTERSON, Region 2 Deputy Director and WARDEN MR. STEVENSON
Scott v. AbbVie Inc. et al
as 1:2016cv01712
Plaintiff:
Clarence Scott
Defendant:
AbbVie Inc., Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Products LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Miller v. Eagleton
as 6:2015cv03726
Petitioner:
Clarence Scott Miller
Respondent:
Willie Eagleton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Scott et al v. Florida Department of Children and Families
as 3:2015cv01043
Petitioner:
Clarence Scott and Mary Scott
Respondent:
Florida Department of Children and Families
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv14075
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Miller v. Fogle et al
as 6:2013cv01670
Plaintiff:
Clarence Scott Miller
Defendant:
Ms Fogle, Ms Barber and John H Carmichael
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers
BRODIE et al v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE et al
as 2:2012cv00861
Plaintiff:
JOHN BRODIE , SUE BRODIE , ROBERT AVELLINI and others
Defendant:
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL PROPERTIES LLC and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 100
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
