Cases 31 - 40 of 61
In re: William Rohland
as 17-2288
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: WILLIAM ROHLAND
Defendant - Respondent:
KEVIN KAUFFMAN and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Nominal Respondent:
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
STEVEN A. CONNER DPM, P.C. v. OPTUM360, LLC
as 2:2017cv01642
Plaintiff:
STEVEN A. CONNER DPM, P.C.
Defendant:
OPTUM360, LLC
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227
CONNER v. ADVANCED DIABETIC SOLUTIONS, LLC et al
as 2:2016cv01437
Plaintiff:
STEVEN A. CONNER
Defendant:
ADVANCED DIABETIC SOLUTIONS, LLC and JOHN DOES 1 - 10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Arnold et al v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation et al
as 4:2016cv01345
Plaintiff:
Paul H. Arnold , Theodore R Babcock , Connie R Babcock and others
Defendant:
Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2016cv00986
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
In Re: Leon Green
as 15-4049
Defendant - Petitioner:
In re: LEON GREEN
Plaintiff - Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Nominal Respondent:
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
In re: Dennever Livingston
as 15-4050
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: DENNEVER LIVINGSTON
Defendant - Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Nominal Respondent:
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
In re: Emil Hohmann
as 15-4013
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: EMIL CONOR HOHMANN
Defendant - Respondent:
JUDGE JOSEPH S. LINDSEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAUPHIN COUNTY, SCOTT STAR, Lower Paxton Township Officer (Badge #67) and others
Nominal Respondent:
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv01549
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv02235
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
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.
