Cases 11 - 20 of 183
PARKINSON v. GORDON et al
as 2:2023cv04004
Plaintiff:
PATRICK PARKINSON
Defendant:
TRACEY L GORDON and CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv03640
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
GORDON et al v. ABRAHAM et al
as 2:2023cv11807
Plaintiff:
SHAKEERAH L. GORDON and CARL J. CHAPMAN
Defendant:
KEREN ABRAHAM, KELLER WILLIAMS VILLAGE SQUARE REALTY, PANKAJ SAVALIYA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Fair Housing Act
Crawford v. Dauphin County et al
as 1:2023cv01380
Plaintiff:
Jimmy Lee Crawford
Defendant:
Dauphin County, PrimeCare Medical, Inc., Warden Gregory Briggs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv13072
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
BARONE v. GORDON et al
as 2:2023cv02821
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS BARONE
Defendant:
TRACEY L GORDON and CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Deborah Chitester v. Stacy Law, et al
as 23-1957
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DEBORAH JILL CHITESTER
Defendant / Appellee:
STACY LAW
Defendant:
TAYLO MYERS, TAMIKA SOMORIN, THOMAS WILES and others
MILLER v. GOGGIN et al
as 2:2022cv03329
Plaintiff:
JOHN RYAN MILLER
Defendant:
THOMAS NELLING, JOSEPH ELIAS, TRACEY LAWS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv04726
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01851
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
