Cases 1 - 9 of 9
CHAPMAN v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv18410
Plaintiff:
DON CHAPMAN
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Mathis v. Anderson County et al
as 8:2022cv00234
Plaintiff:
Grayson Mathis, Sr
Defendant:
Anderson County, Anderson County Sheriffs Office, Anderson, City of and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr (Other)
CHAPMAN v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2020cv04195
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC and others
Plaintiff:
DON CHAPMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BRYANT et al v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv03194
Plaintiff:
BRIAN BURTSFIELD, BRADLEY WADE CARAVIELLO, KEITH COLLINS and others
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, 3M COMPANY, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Bryant et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2019cv02188
Plaintiff:
Brian Burtsfield, Bradley Wade Caraviello, Keith Collins and others
Defendant:
Aearo, LLC, 3M Company, Does 1-50 and others
Marla Bruemmer, et al v. Michael Reardon, et al
as 13-1638
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARLA M. BRUEMMER and DESIGN EVOLUTIONS, INC.
Defendant:
MICHAEL REARDON, et al.
Defendant - Appellee:
TOM SCOTT, dba T.A. Scott Construction, Inc. and DON CHAPMAN
Bruemmer et al v. Reardon et al
as 1:2011cv00988
Plaintiff:
Marla M. Bruemmer and Design Evolutions, Inc.
Defendant:
Michael Reardon, Laurie Reardon, Tom Scott and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Chapman et al v. Merck & Co Inc et al
as 2:2007cv00902
Plaintiff:
Don Chapman, Don Chapman, Don Chapman and others
Defendant:
Merck & Co Inc, Merck & Co Inc, Merck & Co Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Asbury, Don Chapman v. American Standard, et al.
as VAE/2:04-CV-08186
Plaintiff:
Asbury, Don Chapman
Defendant:
American Standard
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.
