Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 10,553
Dutschmann v. 84 Lumber Company, a limited partnership et al
as 3:2024cv01153
Plaintiff: Aubrey Dutschmann
Defendant: 84 Lumber Company, a limited partnership, Ace Hardware Corporation, Advance Stores Company Incorporated and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00334
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv04677
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Gerads v. 84 Lumber Company et al
as 3:2023cv03672
Plaintiff: James Gerads
Defendant: 84 Lumber Company, Ace Hardware Corporation, Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Successor-by-Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation
Boyce A. Stringer et al v. American Biltrite, Inc. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2023cv09813
Defendant: DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS, INC., Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to, and formerly known as DOMCO INC., FLOOR PRODUCTS (TEXAS), AZROCK INDUSTRIES INC., UVALDE ROCK ASPHALT COMPANY, REDCO CORPORATION, formerly known as CRANE CO., Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to COCHRANE CORPORATION, AMERICAN BILTRITE INC. and others
Plaintiff: Boyce Stringer, Nancy Stringer, Boyce A. Stringer and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Asbestos Litigation
Rawlings v. American Optical Corporation et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2023cv01794
Plaintiff: Richard Rawlings
Defendant: Greene Tweed & Co., Inc., American Optical Corporation, Armstrong International, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation
Dean, Sr. et al v. AII Acquisition LLC et al
as 4:2023cv01467
Defendant: AII Acquisition LLC, Flowserve Corporation, Genuine Parts Company doing business as National Automotive Parts Association also known as NAPA and others
Plaintiff: Nile Dean, Sr. and Camellia Dean
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
HOWARD v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION et al
as 5:2022cv00259
Plaintiff: MARTIN M. HOWARD
Cross Claimant: AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, CORNING, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY and others
Defendant: BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CBS CORPORATION, CLEAVER BROOKS, INC. and others
3Rd Party Defendant: COOPER INDUSTRIES LLC, CRANE COMPANY, EATON CORPORATION and others
Cross Defendant: THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, GTE OPERATIONS SUPPORT, INC., THE OKONITE COMPANY and others
3Rd Party Plaintiff: MIGHTY AUTO PARTS and MIGHTY AUTO PARTS WESTERN NEW YORK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Pelton et al v. John Crane, Inc. et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2021cv04316
Plaintiff: Chloyde Pelton, Shirley Pelton and Crown, Cork and Seal Company, Inc., successor-in-interest to Mundet Cork Company
Cross Defendant: John Crane, Inc., IMO Industries Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Delaval Turbine, Inc., and C.H. Wheeler Manufacturing Company and Goulds Pumps, LLC
Counter Defendant: Air & Liquid Systems, Inc., Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Carrier Corporaion, Carrier Global Corporation and others
Defendant: Alfa Laval Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to Delaval Purifiers, Amtrol Inc., successor-in-interest to Thrush Company and H.A. Thrush Company, Caterpillar, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Petition for Removal
Attebury et al v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et al
as 3:2023cv05012
Plaintiff: Ervel Attebury and Lutrecia Attebury
Defendant: Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Redco Corporation, Velan Valve Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury

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.


Why Is My Information Online?