Cases 1 - 10 of 23
USA v. Ryan Keel
as 23-2064
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
RYAN KEEL
Michael Keeling v. John Wetzel, et al
as 23-2045
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL E. KEELING
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary, Department of Corrections, DR. JEANNE RIMEHOUSE, Licensed Psychologist/Psychiatrist for the Department of Corrections in Central Office and DR. HOFFMAN, Licensed Psychologist Manager, Department of Corrections at SCI Dallas
Jesse Keel v. Septa's Philadelphia Housing A, et al
as 21-2365
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JESSE LEE KEEL
Defendant / Appellee:
SEPTA'S PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUHORITY C.L.S., C.B.H.I.C.M.S., PHILADELPHIA CITY'S C.B.H.S. and others
Debtor / Appellee:
TD BANK
Michael Keeling v. Superintendent Dallas SCI, et al
as 21-1369
Defendant / Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT DALLAS SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY COUNTY and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL KEELING
Carl Keeling v. Smith & Nephew Inc, et al
as 20-1924
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CARL KEELING
Defendant / Appellee:
SMITH & NEPHEW INC
Defendant:
SMITH & NEPHEW ORTHOPAEDICS
Michael Keeling v. Superintendent Dallas SCI
as 19-2214
Defendant / Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT DALLAS SCI
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL KEELING
Quintez Talley v. Dorina Varner, et al
as 19-1824
Defendant / Appellee:
KEEL, Lieutenant, CAPTAIN SUNDERLAND, FACILITY MANAGER KAUFFMAN and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
QUINTEZ TALLEY
Desmond Keels v. Steve Buzas
as 18-1023
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DESMOND KEELS
Defendant - Appellee:
STEVE BUZAS, Unit Manager
In re: Michael Keeling
as 17-1976
Petitioner:
In re: MICHAEL EVAN KEELING
Respondent:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA
Andrew Keel v. Superintendent Fayette SCI, et al
as 17-1319
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANDREW AIMEE KEEL
Defendant - Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT FAYETTE SCI and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ERIE COUNTY
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.
