Cases 61 - 70 of 6,264
Andrew Fullman v. City of Philadelphia, et al
as 24-1473
Plaintiff:
ANDREW FULLMAN
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY, BUREAU OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF ADJUDICATION and others
Prince Ellis, et al v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 24-1321
Plaintiff:
PRINCE R. ELLIS, MICKEY M ELLIS and VERONA E.T. ELLIS
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COMPTROLLER PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS and others
Prince Ellis, et al v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 24-1336
Plaintiff:
PRINCE R. ELLIS, MICKEY M ELLIS and VERONA E.T. ELLIS
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COMPTROLLER PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS and others
Justin De La Cruz Martinez v. Ned Nakles
as 24-1414
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN JUAN DE LA CRUZ MARTINEZ
Defendant:
NED NAKLES and NED J. NAKLES, JR.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1348
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Justin De La Cruz Martinez v. Timothy Creany
as 24-1422
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN JUAN DE LA CRUZ MARTINEZ
Defendant:
JUDGE TIMOTHY CREANY
Dion Horton, et al v. Administrative Judge Jill Rangos, et al
as 24-1325
Plaintiff:
DION HORTON, DAMON JONES, CRAIG BROWNLEE and others
Defendant:
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JILL RANGOS, in her official capacity, FRANK J. SCHERER, DIRECTOR OF ADULT PROBATION AND PAROLE, in his official capacity, ANTHONY M. MARIANI, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGE and others
Nedal Elfar v. Township of Holmdel, et al
as 24-1353
Plaintiff:
NEDAL ELFAR
Defendant:
TOWNSHIP OF HOLMDEL, MICHAEL SASSO, MATTHEW MENOSKY and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1673
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Justin De La Cruz Martinez v. Richard McCormick, Jr.
as 24-1412
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN JUAN DE LA CRUZ MARTINEZ
Defendant:
JUDGE RICHARD E. MCCORMICK, JR.
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.
