Cases 1 - 10 of 23
Albrecht et al v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2021cv00196
Plaintiff:
Daniel Fowler, Toren Pruden, Charles Withrow and others
Defendant:
Sue Washburn, Paula Myers, Ken Jeske and others
Petitioner:
Miles Erb, Leroy Lamont Wells and Serafin Pahua-Pahua
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CUMMINGS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2020cv02467
Defendant:
AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and 3M COMPANY
Plaintiff:
DANIEL CUMMINGS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HICKEY et al v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv03080
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS SEVERS, MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, RONALD FEDERICE and others
Defendant:
3M COMPANY and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Hickey et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2019cv02085
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Severs, Manuel Rodriguez, Ronald Federice and others
Defendant:
3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv02462
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mohamed Mohamed v. Irving Independent School Dist, et al
as 18-10444
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MOHAMED ELHASSAN MOHAMED, as Next Friend for A.M., a Minor
Defendant - Appellee:
IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DANIEL CUMMINGS, In His Individual Capacity, CITY OF IRVING and others
Daniel Cummings, Jr. v. MS Department of Corrections, et al
as 16-60545
Petitioner - Appellant:
DANIEL CUMMINGS, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mohamed v. Irving Independent School District et al
as 3:2016cv02283
Plaintiff:
Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed
Defendant:
Irving Independent School District, Daniel Cummings and City of Irving
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Troupe v. Woods et al
as 3:2016cv05077
Plaintiff:
David Troupe
Defendant:
Edward Woods, Donald MacWilliam, Nathaniel Burt and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
