Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv03148
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
United States of America v. U.S. Indus. et al
as 2:2019mc00113
Defendant:
Smith Scott Co., Inc., United Concrete Pipe Corp., United States Steel Corp. and others
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Bartlett et al v. Bath Iron Works Corporation et al
as 3:2015cv00345
Plaintiff:
Dale Bartlett and Maxima Bartlett
Defendant:
Bath Iron Works Corporation, Crane Co., General Dynamics Corp. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JONES v. 3M et al
as 2:2011cv67788
Plaintiff:
KENNETH R. JONES
Defendant:
3M , ANCHOR DARLING VALVE COMPANY, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HARBIN v. 3M et al
as 2:2011cv67790
Plaintiff:
HUGH RAY HARBIN
Defendant:
3M , ANCHOR DARLING VALVE COMPANY, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
McDANIEL v. 3M et al
as 2:2011cv67787
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM McDANIEL
Defendant:
3M , ANCHOR DARLING VALVE COMPANY, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JONES v. 3M et al
as 2:2011cv67785
Plaintiff:
VENISE FAYE JONES
Defendant:
3M , ANCHOR DARLING VALVE COMPANY, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BLACKWELL v. 3M et al
as 2:2011cv67789
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM M. BLACKWELL
Defendant:
3M , ANCHOR DARLING VALVE COMPANY, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ETHERDIGE v. 3M et al
as 2:2011cv67791
Plaintiff:
JOHNNY H. ETHERDIGE
Defendant:
3M , ANCHOR DARLING VALVE COMPANY, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ALLEN v. 3M et al
as 2:2011cv67786
Plaintiff:
JOE L. ALLEN
Defendant:
3M , ANCHOR DARLING VALVE COMPANY, A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
