Cases 1 - 10 of 20
Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp. v. Dycos Services, Inc.
as 7:2022cv00184
Plaintiff:
SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP., as Successor in Interest to SMITHFIELD PACKING COMPANY, INCORPORATED and Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp.
Defendant:
DYCOS SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Phillips v. Smithfield Packing Company, Inc.
as 5:2016cv00834
Defendant:
Smithfield Packing Company, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Aisha Phillips
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2014cv00070
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2014cv00071
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2014cv00068
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2013cv00145
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Holmes v. The Smithfield Packing Company, Incorporated
as 5:2013cv00105
Plaintiff:
Michael Edward Holmes
Defendant:
Smithfield Packing Company, Incorporated
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Finicky Pet Food, Inc. v. Smithfield Packing Company, Inc.
as 5:2010cv00242
Defendant:
Smithfield Packing Company, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Finicky Pet Food, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2010cv00059
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 151 Labor: Review of Agency Action
MCDOUGALD v. THE SMITHFIELD PACKING COMPANY, INC.
as 1:2009cv00950
Plaintiff:
THREALESSA MCDOUGALD
Defendant:
THE SMITHFIELD PACKING COMPANY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 Family & Medical Leave Act
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.
