Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Proctor & Gamble Medical Plan for Active Employees v. Flaherty et al
as 1:2022cv11239
Plaintiff:
Proctor & Gamble Medical Plan for Active Employees
Defendant:
Kaleigh Flaherty
Debtor:
Rawson Merrigan & Litner, LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Rawson et al v. Town of Reading et al
as 1:2021cv10147
Defendant:
Erik Drauschke, Town of Reading and Patrick Silva
Plaintiff:
Anthony Perrotti and Catherine Rawson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Hector v. Pallotta et al
as 1:2015cv00506
Plaintiff:
Alice B. Hector
Defendant:
Frank Pallotta , Town of Burrillville , James Woodward and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 15-1813
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv30049
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2003
Ahern, et al v. O'Keefe, et al
as 14-2329
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWARD AHERN, KAI KUNZ and WILLIAM XI PROPERTIES SERIES, LLC
Defendant:
ANTHONY JOSEPH SCOLA, RONALD MCQUINN, KELLER WILLIAMS NORTH CENTRAL and others
Defendant - Appellee:
KELLE O'KEEFE, DANIEL LORING, MARK KAVANACH and others
United States of America v. Rawson
as 4:2013cv40139
Petitioner:
United States of America
Respondent:
Richard Rawson
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1365
Ahern et al v. Scola et al
as 4:2012cv40096
Plaintiff:
Edward Ahern and Kai Kunz
Defendant:
Anthony Scola, Sheila McQuinn, Ronald McQuinn and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2011cv30250
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 38 U.S.C. § 2021
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv00487
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
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.
