Cases 91 - 100 of 12,459
PENCE v. NOVO NORDISK A/S et al
as 2:2024cv04463
Defendant:
NOVO NORDISK A/S and NOVO NORDISK INC.
Plaintiff:
DANIEL LEE PENCE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Jerry Daniels v. Dauphin County District Attorney's Office, et al
as 24-2570
Defendant:
HARRISBURG POLICE BUREAU and DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAUPHIN COUNTY
Plaintiff:
JERRY JERON DANIELS
Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al
as 1:2024cv00969
Defendant:
Ronald Kisling, Fastly, Inc., Richard Daniels and others
Plaintiff:
Mark Sweitzer
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act
JONES v. SEVEN POINT ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
as 2:2024cv01205
Plaintiff:
DANIEL JONES
Defendant:
SEVEN POINT ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Urve Maggitti v. William Mahon, et al
as 24-2554
Defendant:
NANCY L. CLEMENS, MICHAEL BRUNELLE, JERRY M. LEHOCKY and others
Plaintiff:
URVE MAGGITTI
Urve Maggitti v. Michael Pullano, et al
as 24-2555
Plaintiff:
URVE MAGGITTI
Defendant:
DEB RYAN, CLAIRE REEVES, FREDDA MADDOX and others
SETTON et al v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
as 2:2024cv08662
Plaintiff:
LINDSAY SETTON and DANIEL SETTON
Defendant:
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
ARBAUGH v. THOMPSON
as 1:2024cv08565
Petitioner:
JAMES DANIEL ARBAUGH
Respondent:
R. THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
FLACCO et al v. OUTLAW et al
as 2:2024cv04374
Defendant:
MICHAEL ZACCAGNI, ALBERT D'ATILLIO, CHARLES RAMSEY and others
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER FLACCO and WINTON SINGLETARY
Cause Of Action: 43 U.S.C. § 260 Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL)
Daniel Salvatierra v. Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine
as 24-2552
Plaintiff:
D.O. DANIEL A. SALVATIERRA
Defendant:
LAKE ERIE COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE, also known as LECOM
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.
