Cases 1 - 8 of 8
LINDE INC. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2021cv03211
Plaintiff:
LINDE INC.
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses
RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II)- MDL NO. 2925
as 1:2020mc00008
Plaintiff:
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY LLC, AK STEEL CORPORATION and others
Defendant:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and others
In Re:
RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II)- MDL NO. 2925
Interested Party:
NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION, CVR ENERGY, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15 Antitrust Litigation
LINDE AG et al v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY et al
as 1:2020cv00033
Defendant:
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY and others
Plaintiff:
LINDE AG and PRAXAIR, INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
LIZALDE v. GOLDBERG et al
as 1:2019cv00956
Defendant:
DONALD TRUMP, MARCIA SHEIN, MARTIN G. GOLDBERG and others
Plaintiff:
DANTE LIZALDE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WATSON v. FARIS et al
as 1:2015cv01164
Plaintiff:
RONALD EUGENE WATSON
Defendant:
MARK H. WITTSTADT, ERIC VANDEL LINDE, MICHAEL KOCH and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
PRICER v. DEUTSCHE BANK et al
as 1:2011cv00331
Plaintiff:
PHYLLIS PRICER
Defendant:
DEUTSCHE BANK , NETWORK SOLUTIONS and BILL LINDES
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
LIND v. MCHUGH
as 1:2010cv02207
Plaintiff:
GEORGE M. LIND
Defendant:
JOHN MCHUGH
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
LOVE et al v. VENEMAN
as 1:2000cv02502
Plaintiff:
ROSEMARY LOVE , LIND MARIE BARA-WEAVER , MARGARET ODOM and others
Defendant:
TOM J. VILSACK
Movant:
BARBARA E, ADAMS , CHRISTINE BRAYBOY ANDERSON , GLADYS SCOTT ANDERSON and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
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.
