Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 1.71 Acres of Land, Owned by David Lee Adams and Teressa H. Adams, Easement Claimed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
as 4:2022cv00035
Plaintiff:
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
Defendant:
1.71 Acres of Land, Owned by David Lee Adams and Teressa H. Adams, Easement Claimed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 717 Natural Gas Act
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. Easements to Construct, Operate, and Maintain a Natural Gas Pipeline Over Tracts of Land in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Including: et al
as 4:2021cv00002
Defendant:
1.71 Acres of Land, Owned by David Lee Adams and Teressa H. Adams, Easement Claimed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 2.60 Acres of Land, Owned by Faye L. Lowe and Glenn Anthony Lowe, Easement Claimed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 5.36 Acres of Land, Owned by Dana H. Sparks, Trustee of the Billie Anne Harmon Living Trust, Easement Claimed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 717
David Edward Adams v. USA
as 7:2019cv81350
Petitioner:
David Edward Adams
Respondent:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Adams v. Colfer-Ike et al
as 2:2017cv00482
Plaintiff:
David M. Adams
Defendant:
Amy Sue Colfer-Ike, John Ike, Chelsea Ike and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00138
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Quinn v. Knight et al
as 3:2016cv00610
Plaintiff:
James Quinn
Defendant:
Glade M. Knight , Justin Knight , Kent W. Colton and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Adams v. Object Innovation, Inc.
as 3:2011cv00272
Plaintiff:
David J. Adams
Defendant:
Object Innovation, Inc.
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.
