Cases
Cases 21 - 30 of 30
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv01369
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
UNITED REFINING COMPANY v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA et al
as 2:2013cv00909
Plaintiff: UNITED REFINING COMPANY
Defendant: NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA , ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE COMPANY , CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON AND LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract
UNITED REFINING COMPANY INCENTIVE SAVINGS PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES et al v. MORRISON et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2012cv00238
Plaintiff: UNITED REFINING COMPANY INCENTIVE SAVINGS PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES and ROBERT KAEMMERER
Defendant: DALLAS Q. MORRISON and MARK WILLIAM PRATT
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1332
COTTILLION et al v. UNITED REFINING COMPANY et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2009cv00140
Plaintiff: JOHN COTTILLION and BEVERLY ELDRIDGE
Defendant: UNITED REFINING COMPANY, UNITED REFINING COMPANY PENSION PLAN FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES, UNITED REFINING COMPANY RETIREMENT COMMITTEE and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement
GENERAL TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 397 v. UNITED REFINING COMPANY
as 1:2008cv00357
Plaintiff: GENERAL TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 397
Defendant: UNITED REFINING COMPANY
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Type: Labor None
SCHRECKONGOST v. UNITED REFINING COMPANY et al
as 1:2008cv00124
Plaintiff: CHARLES D. SCHRECKONGOST
Defendant: UNITED REFINING COMPANY, UNITED REFINING COMPANY PENSION PLAN and LAWRENCE A. LOUGHLIN
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv00071
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Intervenor Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451 Employment Discrimination
Coleman et al v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 6:2007cv06117
Plaintiff: Bruce Coleman and Rochester Auto Maintenance, Inc.
Defendant: Atlantic Richfield Company, BP Oil Corporation, United Refining Company of Pennsylvania and others
Cross Claimant: Atlantic Richfield Company, BP Oil Corporation, Atlantic Richfield Company and others
Cross Defendant: United Refining Company of Pennsylvania, Atlantic Richfield Company, BP Oil Corporation and others
Counter Claimant: United Refining Company of Pennsylvania
Counter Defendant: Bruce Coleman and Rochester Auto Maintenance, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
City of Lowell Massachusetts v. Amerada Hess Corp.
as 1:2005cv04018
Defendant: Exxon Mobil Corp, doing business as Exxon Mobile Refining and Supply Company doing business as Exxon Chemical USA doing business as ExxonMobil Chemical Corporation formerly known as Exxon Corporation, Atlantic Richfield Company individually also known as Arco formerly known as Arco Petroleum Company doing business as Arco Products Company, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. individually formerly known as Gulf Oil Corporation doing business as Chevron Products Company doing business as Chevron Chemical Company and others
Special Master: Ronald J. Hedges
Plaintiff: City of Lowell Massachusetts
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 pi Fed. Question: Personal Injury
The City of New York v. Amerada Hess Corp.
as 1:2004cv03417
Defendant: El Paso CGP Company doing business as Coastal Oil New York, Inc. formerly known as Coastal Corporation, TRMI Holdings Inc., Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC and others
Plaintiff: Water Finance Agency, The Water Board and The City of New York
Petitioner: Gary Stumpf, Thomas M Milton, Meena Nainan and others
Material Witne: Barker Hamill
Special Master: Ronald J. Hedges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 pi Fed. Question: 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?