Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2026cv11236
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
Shoemaker v. McKesson Corporation
as 3:2025cv02558
Plaintiff:
John Shoemaker
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2615 Family and Medical Leave
Newman et al v. Smith County, Texas et al
as 2:2024cv00067
Plaintiff:
Brian Newman, Latosha Newman, Joyce Newman and others
Defendant:
Smith County, Texas, Sheriff Larry R Smith, John Shoemaker and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
SHOEMAKER v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv09069
Plaintiff:
JOHN SHOEMAKER
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
SHOEMAKER v. 3M COMPANY
as 1:2023cv00097
Plaintiff:
JOHN SHOEMAKER
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Shoemaker v. United States of America
as 4:2016cv02590
Petitioner:
William John Shoemaker
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Rowling v. Lifchitz et al
as 3:2016cv00459
Plaintiff:
Clifford Antonio Rowling
Defendant:
Alan Lifchitz, Alan Montgomery, Robert Craig and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Tani v. St. Mary's County et al
as 8:2008cv01950
Plaintiff:
Kess Tani
Defendant:
St. Mary's County, Francis J. Russell, Kenneth R. Dement and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Talley v. Everton et al
as 6:2008cv00118
Plaintiff:
Gary N Talley
Defendant:
David E Everton, Thomas L Harris and John Shoemaker
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
White et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, et al
as 2:2007cv00522
Plaintiff:
Stephen White, Rhonda White, Walter Baty and others
Defendant:
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: 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.
