Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Roy Lee Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
as 22-2399
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROY L. WILLIAMS
Defendant / Appellee:
SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Hamel v. Williams et al
as 2:2020cv00038
Plaintiff:
Robert Hamel
Defendant:
Fidel Cobb, Kenyon Randle, Lane and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In re: Roy L. Williams, et al
as 19-1251
Petitioner:
In re: ROY L. WILLIAMS
Respondent:
WILLIAM STICKMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and others
Undetermined:
R. BARCLAY SURRICK
WILLIAMS v. FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY
as 2:2011cv52049
Plaintiff:
ROY L. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 0688
WILLIAMS v. 3M et al
as 2:2008cv86389
Defendant:
EXXON MOBIL CORP., D.B. RILEY, INC., JOHN CRANE and others
Plaintiff:
ROY L. WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Roy L. Williams v. Ford Motor Co., et al.
as PAE/2:08-CV-68792
Defendant:
Ford Motor Co
Plaintiff:
Roy L. Williams
Roy L. Williams v. E.D. Bullard Co., et al.
as PAE/2:08-CV-60772
Defendant:
E.D. Bullard Co
Plaintiff:
Roy L. Williams
WILLIAMS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY et al
as 2:2008cv68792
Plaintiff:
ROY L. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FORD MOTOR COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
WILLIAMS v. E.D. BULLARD et al
as 2:2008cv60772
Plaintiff:
ROY L. WILLIAMS, ROY L. WILLIAMS, ROY L. WILLIAMS and others
Defendant:
E.D. BULLARD, ATLAS TURNER, INC., ATLAS TURNER, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Marshall v. Robbins, et al
as 1:1978cv04075
Plaintiff:
Ray Marshall
Defendant:
Loran W Robbins, Robert E Schlieve, Thomas O'Malley and others
Movant:
Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension and Health and Welfare Funds
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1109 Breach of Fiduciary Duties
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.
