Cases 1 - 10 of 87
Powell v. Railroad Retirement Board (MAG+)
as 3:2024cv00257
Plaintiff:
David Powell
Defendant:
Railroad Retirement Board
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 231 Railroad Retirement Act of 1974
Powell v. Jefferson County Department of Job & Family Services et al
as 2:2024cv01405
Plaintiff:
David Powell
Defendant:
Jefferson County Department of Job & Family Services, ODJFS, Ohio Medicaid and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Dan Chacko v. Melissa Preston
as 24-1243
Plaintiff:
DAN CHACKO
Defendant:
MELISSA PRESTON, DAVID POWELL, JOHN R. FORD and others
POWELL v. 3M COMPANY
as 7:2023cv01125
Plaintiff:
DAVID POWELL
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Shavortis Powell et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 2:2023cv07122
Plaintiff:
Shavortis Powell, Emery Day, Jessica Knoke and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Powell et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 1:2023cv00698
Plaintiff:
Shavortis Powell, Emery Day, Jessica Knoke and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00352
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Chacko v. Preston et al
as 1:2023cv00551
Plaintiff:
Dan Chacko
Defendant:
Melissa Preston, David Powell, John R. Ford and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Powell v. Railroad Retirement Board (MAG+)
as 3:2023cv00026
Plaintiff:
David Powell
Defendant:
Railroad Retirement Board
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 231 Railroad Retirement Act of 1974
POWELL v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv10004
Plaintiff:
DAVID POWELL
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
