Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Lund Motion Products Inc v. Earl Owen Company Inc
as 3:2022cv02414
Plaintiff:
Lund Motion Products, Inc. d/b/a AMP Research and Lund Motion Products Inc doing business as AMP Research
Defendant:
Earl Owen Company, Inc. and Earl Owen Company Inc
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
OWENS v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv44705
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL EARL OWENS
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
OWENS v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY et al
as 1:2020cv01900
Defendant:
HAROLD BLAKE, CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY and MATTHEW MCFADDEN
Plaintiff:
EARL OWENS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv03412
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
OWEN et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC. et al
as 3:2017cv06696
Plaintiff:
DEBORAH OWEN and JOHNNY EARL OWEN
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC. , JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. , IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Owens v. Connecticut
as 3:2016cv00897
Plaintiff:
Marvin Earl Owens
Defendant:
State of Connecticut
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Earl Owens v. Tom Maness, et al
as 15-41633
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EARL OWENS
Defendant - Appellee:
TOM MANESS, Criminal District Attorney, RODNEY CONERLY, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, COURTNEY DAVIS, District Attorney and others
Owens v. Maness et al
as 1:2015cv00287
Plaintiff:
Earl Owens
Defendant:
Tom Maness, Rodney Conerly, Courtney Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Owens v. Maness et al
as 1:2015cv00288
Plaintiff:
Earl Owens
Defendant:
Tom Maness, Rodney Conerly, Courtney Davis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Owens v. Maness et al
as 6:2015cv00697
Plaintiff:
Earl Owens
Defendant:
Tom Maness, Rodney Conerly, Courtney Davis 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.
