Cases 1 - 10 of 19
STICH v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. et al
as 3:2020cv13811
Defendant:
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10
Plaintiff:
ANNE FARROLL STICH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
KEELING v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. et al
as 3:2019cv08189
Plaintiff:
CARL KEELING
Defendant:
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
SMITH v. ZIMMER US, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv06863
Defendant:
ZIMMER INC, STRYKER CORPORATION, DEPUY SYNTHES SALES, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
Jamie R. Smith
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MCCRINK et al v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
as 2:2018cv11850
Defendant:
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., DEF CORP and ABC CORP
Plaintiff:
MARY MCCRINK and THOMAS MCCRINK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MCCRINK et al v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
as 2:2018cv11850
Plaintiff:
THOMAS MCCRINK and MARY MCCRINK
Defendant:
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. , ABC CORP and DEF CORP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Houmes v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
as 4:2017cv01036
Plaintiff:
Karen L. Houmes
Defendant:
Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Walter Shuker, et al v. Smith & Nephew PLC, et al
as 16-3785
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WALTER SHUKER and VIVIAN SHUKER
Defendant - Appellee:
SMITH & NEPHEW PLC and SMITH & NEPHEW INC
WOODELL et al v. ETHICON, INC. et al
as 3:2015cv07669
Plaintiff:
JERRY WOODELL and ESTATE OF BETHANN WOODELL
Defendant:
ETHICON, INC., ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BECKER et al v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv02538
Plaintiff:
DEBORAH A. BECKER and RAYMOND BECKER
Defendant:
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. , ABC CORP. 1-X, JOHN DOE I-X and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PROVENCE v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
as 2:2015cv01492
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL PROVENCE
Defendant:
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
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.
