Cases 21 - 30 of 398
Peterson v. Clarke
as 7:2023cv00417
Petitioner:
Michael Andrew Peterson
Respondent:
Harold W. Clarke
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SCUTERI v. REAGLE et al
as 2:2023cv00361
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANDREW SCUTERI
Defendant:
CHRISTINE REAGLE, RAINES, PHEGLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PEREZARCE v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2023cv17263
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANDREW PEREZARCE
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AERO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Michael Andrew Brown v. 3M Company, The et al
as 2:2023cv02791
Defendant:
3M Company, The, Du Pont De Nemours Inc, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc and others
Plaintiff:
Michael Andrew Brown
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
SCUTERI v. CENTURION SERVICES et al
as 2:2023cv00295
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANDREW SCUTERI
Defendant:
CENTURION SERVICES and PABLO PEREZ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Michael Andrew Dennis v. Warden
as 2:2023cv04342
Petitioner:
Michael Andrew Dennis
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BLAINE v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv12393
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANDREW BLAINE
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
(HC) Dennis v. Warden
as 1:2023cv00834
Petitioner:
Michael Andrew Dennis
Respondent:
Warden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SCUTERI v. ZATECKY
as 2:2023cv00252
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANDREW SCUTERI
Defendant:
DUSHAN ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jane Doe v. James Dewees
as 23-1550
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JANE DOE
Defendant / Appellee:
JAMES T. DEWEES, Sheriff of Carroll County, BEN CRAFT, Deputy Sheriff, DOUGLAS KRIETE, Deputy Sheriff and others
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.
