Cases 51 - 60 of 247
HARRIS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2019cv05436
Defendant:
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, CRAIG MARTELLA, CATERINA GALLELLI and others
Plaintiff:
TAMIERA HARRIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CASTILLO v. GUZLEY et al
as 5:2019cv04002
Plaintiff:
CHARLIE CASTILLO
Defendant:
ATTENDING "JOHN DOE", MARISA R. LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ, OFFICER BRYAN GUZLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ESTATE OF STERLING COLE v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2019cv03924
Defendant:
ROBERT D TAYLOR, GERALD MAY, JOHN DOE 1-10 and others
Plaintiff:
ESTATE OF STERLING COLE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COLON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 5:2019cv04411
Plaintiff:
NEFTALI COLON
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
COLON v. FERGUSON et al
as 5:2019cv03475
Petitioner:
PEDRO COLON
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LEHIGH and TAMMY FERGUSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
COLON v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. et al
as 2:2019cv03131
Defendant:
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and JOHN DOES 1-3
Plaintiff:
OVIDIO COLON
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601
CATERBONE v. LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE et al
as 5:2018cv02710
Defendant:
MIKE GEESEY, ABIGAL PFLUMM, ASHLEY BLAKE and others
Plaintiff:
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COLON v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
as 2:2019cv00160
Plaintiff:
KERWIN COLON
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
COLON v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
as 2:2018cv05056
Plaintiff:
MIGUEL COLON
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
Colon v. Merck & Co, Inc. et al
as 2:2018cv20164
Plaintiff:
Alicia D. Colon
Defendant:
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., MCKESSON CORPORATION and MERCK & CO., INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
