Cases 1 - 9 of 9
May v. New Mexico Attorney General
as 1:2024cv00137
Petitioner:
Andrew Nicholas May
Respondent:
New Mexico Attorney General and FNU LNU
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
May v. Stephenson et al
as 2:2022cv00563
Petitioner:
Andrew Nicholas May
Respondent:
George Stephenson and Attorney General for the State of New Mexico
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nicholas May v. Special Administrative Board, et al
as 21-2955
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Nicholas May
Defendant / Appellee:
Special Administrative Board of the School District of the City of Saint Louis, also known as Special Administrative Board of the Transitional School District of the City of St. Louis and St. Louis Public Schools, also known as St. Louis Public School District
MAY v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2020cv08390
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS MAY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MAY v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv84587
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS MAY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2019cv02329
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Patton et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2019cv02257
Plaintiff:
Terry Youtsey, Nealson Foster, Cyrus McCoy and others
Defendant:
3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC
PATTON et al v 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv03326
Plaintiff:
TERRY YOUTSEY, NEALSON FOSTER, CYRUS MCCOY and others
Defendant:
AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and 3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Mays v. Miller et al
as 2:2010cv00170
Plaintiff:
Nicholas Mays
Defendant:
Brian Miller, James Woods, Jr. and The City of Olive Branch, Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
