Cases 1 - 10 of 16
DOUGLAS v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv13859
Plaintiff:
EDWARD MADIGAN DOUGLAS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
United States of America v. Carter et al
as 1:2018cv00109
Defendant:
Carolyn Sue Douglas, Nancy Elaine Davis, Marla Lea Carter and others
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
Douglas v. Myrtle Beach, City of et al
as 4:2017cv03006
Plaintiff:
Edward C Douglas
Defendant:
Myrtle Beach, City of and South Carolina Department of Transportation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Douglas v. Dreamdealers USA, LLC et al
as 2:2017cv02134
Plaintiff:
Edward B Douglas
Defendant:
Dreamdealers USA, LLC, David Perisset and Romain Thievin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Garza et al v. Douglas et al
as 1:2015cv00006
Defendant:
Edward Leon Douglas and United Global Expedited Services Inc.
Plaintiff:
Jesus Cervantes Garza and Jose Cervantes Garza
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Tort Claim
Edward Carrington v. City of Durham
as 11-1465
Plaintiff - Appellee:
EDWARD CARRINGTON, CASEY J. CARROLL, MICHAEL P. CATALINO and others
Defendant:
STEVEN W. CHALMERS, PATRICK BAKER, RONALD HODGE and others
Defendant - Appellant:
CITY OF DURHAM, MARK GOTTLIEB, BENJAMIN HIMAN and others
Edward Carrington v. Patrick Baker
as 11-1453
Plaintiff - Appellee:
EDWARD CARRINGTON, CASEY J. CARROLL, MICHAEL P. CATALINO and others
Defendant - Appellant:
PATRICK BAKER, STEVEN W. CHALMERS, RONALD HODGE and others
Defendant:
DUKE UNIVERSITY, DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, RICHARD BRODHEAD and others
Edward Douglas v. Richard Parsons, et al
as 10-1466
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWARD M. DOUGLAS
Defendant - Appellee:
RICHARD H. PARSONS and ROBERT A. ALZARADO
Edward M. Douglas v. USA
as 10-1236
Petitioner - Appellant:
EDWARD M. DOUGLAS
Respondent - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
