Cases 1 - 10 of 21
Stephenson v. Davis
as 24-414
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH STEPHENSON, (Class of One, Pro-se Petitioner)
Defendant:
CARLENE DAVIS, (D.O.C. Counselor Supervisor), ANGEL QUIROS, (Commissioner-Conn. Dept of Correction, BARONE, (Warden, MacDougall State Prison) and others
David McNeil v. IBM
as 23-7162
Petitioner / Appellant:
David McNeil
Respondent / Appellee:
International Business Machines Corporation
McNEIL V. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.
as 1:2022cv02378
Plaintiff:
David McNeill
Respondent:
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.
Petitioner:
DAVID MCNEIL
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv01624
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 626 Job Discrimination (Age)
ALBURY v 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2022cv01092
Plaintiff:
TODD ALBURY, JONATHAN ADAMS, ROCKY AMMERMAN and others
Defendant:
3M COMPANY and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Albury et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2021cv02132
Plaintiff:
Todd Albury, Jonathan Adams, Rocky Ammerman and others
Defendant:
3M Company and Aearo Technologies LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Lawrence Smith v. George, et al
as 20-55725
Defendant / Appellee:
DAVID MCNEIL MORSE, Attorney, individual and GEORGE, Chief Justice, official capacity
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LAWRENCE CARLTON SMITH
Lawrence Carlton Smith v. George et al
as 2:2020cv03574
Defendant:
David McNeil Morse and Chief Justice George
Plaintiff:
Lawrence Carlton Smith
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Torres v. Woody et al
as 3:2018cv00473
Plaintiff:
Luis Torres
Defendant:
Woody, John Doe, Carlos Burgos and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
LEE v. MICHAEL JONES
as 3:2017cv00656
Plaintiff:
KEITH DARRYL LEE
Defendant:
MICHAEL JONES, NICHOLAS GEEKER, RICHARD SCHERLING 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.
