Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Homes Development Corp. et al v. Edmund & Wheeler, Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv00633
Plaintiff:
Homes Development Corp. and 1031 Realty Trust, LLC
Defendant:
Edmund & Wheeler, Inc., Edmund & Wheeler Exchange Services, LLC, John D. Hamrick and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Snell et al v. Atrium Medical Corporation et al
as 1:2018cv00990
Plaintiff:
Edmund Snell and Robin Snell
Defendant:
Getinge AB, Atrium Medical Corporation and Maquet Cardiovascular US Sales, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Graham v. NH State Prison for Women, Warden et al
as 1:2010cv00332
Defendant:
Jean Chapman, John Eppillito, Jr., Edmund Hucks and others
Plaintiff:
Kristyn Graham
Notice Only:
NH Attorney General - Notice Only - CV (Court Use Only) and NH Department of Corrections - Notice Only - CV (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv00207
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
LaChance v. NH Attorney General
as 1:2007cv00127
Petitioner:
Edmund D. LaChance, Jr.
Respondent:
NH Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LaChance v. Millette et al
as 1:2007fp00121
Plaintiff:
Edmund D. LaChance, Jr.
Defendant:
Jessica C. Millette and NH Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
R.D. Edmunds & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Concrete Co., Inc.
as 1:2007cv00005
Plaintiff:
R.D. Edmunds & Sons, Inc.
Defendant:
Superior Concrete Co., Inc., Superior Concrete Co., Inc. and Superior Concrete Co., Inc.
Counter Claimant:
Superior Concrete Co., Inc.
Counter Defendant:
R.D. Edmunds & Sons, Inc.
ThirdParty Plaintiff:
Superior Concrete Co., Inc.
Third Party Defendant:
Mohlin & Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
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.
