Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Prince Ellis, et al v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 24-1652
Plaintiff:
PRINCE R. ELLIS, MICKEY M ELLIS and VERONA E.T. ELLIS
Defendant:
MINDY POSOFF, Managing Director, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COMPTROLLER PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and others
Prince Ellis, et al v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 24-1321
Plaintiff:
PRINCE R. ELLIS, MICKEY M ELLIS and VERONA E.T. ELLIS
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COMPTROLLER PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS and others
Prince Ellis, et al v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 24-1336
Plaintiff:
PRINCE R. ELLIS, MICKEY M ELLIS and VERONA E.T. ELLIS
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COMPTROLLER PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS and others
FALLAS v. DIGERONIMO et al
as 3:2023cv04100
Plaintiff:
DARYL FALLAS
Defendant:
JUSTINE DIGERONIMO, SOUTH JERSEY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. and JUSTINE DIGERONIMO, ESQ.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ELLIS et al v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2023cv02450
Plaintiff:
PRINCE R. ELLIS, MICKEY M. ELLIS and VERONA E.T. ELLIS
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE COMPTROLLER PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH DEPT., THE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OPERATIONS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv06622
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
SCHNEIDER v. LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION et al
as 1:2008cv05981
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK SCHNEIDER
Defendant:
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION, HELAINE M. BARNETT, SOUTH JERSEY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2008cv01220
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
