Cases 91 - 100 of 183
BLAKENEY v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2019cv01515
Defendant:
SGT. GOLD, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, T. SHAWLEY and others
Plaintiff:
HERBERT BLAKENEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
HEAD v. CARR et al
as 2:2019cv01246
Defendant:
STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JR., MICHAEL D. ANDERSON, CHARLES R. CARR, JR. and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES HEAD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2019cv01297
Plaintiff:
MORRIS A. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
HILL v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2019cv00960
Defendant:
DR. RAMIREZ, ROBERT GILMORE, BRITTNY CHIAVETTI and others
Plaintiff:
LAVOND A HILL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
MORRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
as 1:2019cv00178
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiff:
DAVID E. MORRIS, JR.
GLOVER v. COHEN, DANIEL E. et al
as 2:2019cv00734
Defendant:
CREATIVE INTEGRATION & DESIGN, INC., LOWELL FRENCH, SUZANNE KAMEESE and others
Plaintiff:
MORRIS S. GLOVER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TALLEY v. MAZZOCCA et al
as 2:2019cv00161
Defendant:
THOMAS SUCHTA, DUSTIN POPE, DAVID LINK and others
Plaintiff:
QUINTEZ TALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
BARREN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
as 2:2019cv00097
Defendant:
SUSAN CONINE, DOUG YUHOUSE, UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION and others
Plaintiff:
DAVID MORRIS BARREN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
DALLAS MORRIS DRILLING, INC. v. MCLACHLAN DRILLING COMPANY et al
as 1:2018cv00381
Defendant:
SOLIDS CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC. and MCLACHLAN DRILLING COMPANY
Plaintiff:
DALLAS MORRIS DRILLING, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ALFORD-MORRIS DAY v. ROETHLISBERGER et al
as 2:2019cv00055
Defendant:
COLLEGE FOOTBALL NCAA, BEN ROETHLISBERGER, MIKE TOMLIN and others
Plaintiff:
RICKEY L. ALFORD-MORRIS DAY
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 504
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.
