Cases 1 - 10 of 94
Clayton v. Roy et al
as 4:2024cv40020
Plaintiff:
John B. Clayton, IV
Defendant:
Derek Roy, William Hughes, Joseph Earley and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
HUGHES v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv09182
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM HUGHES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
William Hughes v. 3M Company, The et al
as 2:2023cv00682
Defendant:
3M Company, The, Du Pont De Nemours Inc, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc and others
Plaintiff:
William Hughes
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
HUGHES v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2023cv00510
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM HUGHES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
USA v. William Wilson
as 22-2107
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
WILLIAM HUGH WILSON
HUGHES v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv12920
Plaintiff:
BRIAN WILLIAM HUGHES and BRIAN W HUGHES
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Daniel Rudd v. City of Norton Shores, et al
as 22-1229
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIEL WILLIAM RUDD
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF NORTON SHORES, GARY NELUND, Mayor; individually and in his official capacity, DANIEL SHAW, Police Chief; individually and in his official capacity and others
HUGHES v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv07056
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Hughes et al v. Ace Insurance Company of the Midwest
as 2:2020cv00497
Plaintiff:
William Hughes and Judith Hughes
Defendant:
Ace Insurance Company of the Midwest
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Wilson v. Young
as 5:2020cv00549
Respondent:
S Young
Petitioner:
William Hugh Wilson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
