Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Lockett v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2024cv01567
Plaintiff:
Keith Lockett
Defendant:
3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.
Lockett v. United State of America et al
as 0:2022cv02087
Plaintiff:
Sharon Kay Lockett
Defendant:
United State of America and State of MNN and 49 States
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2021cv01225
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2021cv01125
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Claybrook et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2019cv02144
Plaintiff:
Arthur Amos, Lanorma Murdock, Phillip Bays and others
Defendant:
3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC
Andreine et al v. Bayer Corporation et al DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED OUT.
as 0:2009cv00517
Plaintiff:
Harry Andreine, Harry Andreine, Catherlyn Bills and others
Defendant:
Bayer Corporation, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 -pip-Diversity-Personal Injury, Product Liability
Lockett v. USADO NOT DOCKET. ALL DOCKETING OCCURS IN CRIMINAL CASE.
as 0:2009cv00512
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Melvin Dewayne Lockett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Lockett v. Ives
as 0:2009cv00444
Petitioner:
Melvin D Lockett
Respondent:
Richard B. Ives
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Melvin D. Lockett v. Richard B. Ives
as 0:2008cv06142
Petitioner:
Melvin D Lockett
Respondent:
Richard B. Ives
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Lockett v. United States of America
as 0:2007cv00191
Petitioner:
Melvin D Lockett
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
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.
