Cases 21 - 30 of 152
DeGuzman et al v. Crane Co. et al
as 3:2017cv02228
Defendant:
Crane Co. , Allied Fluid Products Corp. , Armstrong International, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Jaime DeGuzman and Loida DeGuzman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Layne Heavy Civil, Inc. v. McWane, Inc.
as 1:2016cv00363
Plaintiff:
Layne Heavy Civil, Inc.
Defendant:
McWane, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Tyler Pipe Company, a division of McWane, Inc. v. Mifab, Inc.
as 2:2016cv00275
Defendant:
Mifab, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Tyler Pipe Company, a division of McWane, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501
United States of America et al v. McWane Inc
as 2:2015cv01504
Plaintiff:
United States of America and Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Defendant:
McWane Inc
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 7413
Summers et al v. McWane, Inc.
as 2:2015cv01239
Defendant:
McWane, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Bradley Summers and Michelle Summers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Seamless Pole Inc v. McWane Inc
as 2:2015cv00051
Plaintiff:
Seamless Pole Inc
Defendant:
McWane Inc
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
Knuffman v. McWane Inc. d/b/a Manchester Tank
as 3:2014cv03301
Plaintiff:
Toni Knuffman
Defendant:
McWane Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
IN RE DUCTILE IRON PIPE FITTINGS ("DIPF") INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION
as 3:2014mc00009
In Re:
DUCTILE IRON PIPE FITTINGS ("DIPF") INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Interested Party:
J&J MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC.
Defendant:
McWANE INC., SIGMA CORPORATION and STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD.
Plaintiff:
STATE OF INDIANA
TC CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. v. MCWANE, INC. et al
as 3:2014cv03454
Plaintiff:
TC CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.
Defendant:
MCWANE, INC., STAR PIPE PRODUCTS LTD. and SIGMA CORP.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 15
McWane, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission
as 14-11363
Petitioner:
MCWANE, INC.,
Respondent:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
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.
