Cases 1 - 10 of 48
Hines v. Jones et al
as 3:2024cv00366
Plaintiff:
James Hines
Defendant:
Michael Jones and John and Jane Doe(s) I-X
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Protective Life Insurance Company v. Welch et al
as 1:2023cv00549
Plaintiff:
Protective Life Insurance Company
Defendant:
Kerry Welch, Michael Jones and David Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335 Interpleader Action
Jones et al v. Ford Motor Company
as 1:2022cv00761
Plaintiff:
Matthew Jones, Michael Jones, Sarah Jones and others
Defendant:
Ford Motor Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Jones et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2020cv13031
Plaintiff:
Christine Jones and Michael Jones
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JONES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 1:2020cv03063
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JONES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
JONES O/B/O CLELANDA ADDISON v. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 2:2020cv03063
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JONES O/B/O CLELANDA ADDISON
Defendant:
ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
JONES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 5:2020cv00318
Plaintiff:
JOHN MICHAEL JONES
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Interested Party:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
DEAN v. JONES et al
as 2:2019cv20740
Plaintiff:
RYAN DEAN
Defendant:
MICHAEL JONES and RIVKIN RADLER LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JONES v. FERGUSON et al
as 2:2018cv00963
Petitioner:
ANDRE MICHAEL JONES
Respondent:
TAMMY L. FERGUSON, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
