Cases 1 - 7 of 7
City of Agawam, Massachusetts et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 3:2023cv00155
Plaintiff:
City of Agawam, Massachusetts, City of Amesbury, Massachusetts, City of Beverly, Massachusetts and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
City of Agawam, Massachusetts et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 1:2022cv11968
Plaintiff:
City of Agawam, Massachusetts, City of Amesbury, Massachusetts, City of Beverly, Massachusetts and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
City of Agawam, Massachusetts et al v. McKinsey and Company, Inc.
as 1:2022cv10027
Plaintiff:
City of Agawam, Massachusetts, City of Amesbury, Massachusetts, City of Beverly, Massachusetts and others
Defendant:
McKinsey and Company, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
City of Brockton, Massachusetts v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2018op46089
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation, Purdue Pharma L.P., Mallinckrodt LLC and others
Plaintiff:
City of Brockton, Massachusetts
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
City of Brockton, Massachusetts v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al
as 1:2018cv11887
Defendant:
SpecGX, LLC, McKesson Corporation, Endo Health Solutions, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
City of Brockton, Massachusetts
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961
Christian v. Sturdevant et al
as 1:2015cv11963
Plaintiff:
Rahsheem Christian
Defendant:
John Sturdevant and City of Brockton, Massachusetts
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Global Tower Assets, LLC v. City of Brockton, Massachusetts et al
as 1:2009cv11764
Plaintiff:
Global Tower Assets, LLC and MetroPCS Massachusetts, LLC
Defendant:
City of Brockton, Massachusetts and City of Brockton Zoning Board of Appeals
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996
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.
