Cases 11 - 20 of 68
Arbitrage Fund v. Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv00861
Plaintiff:
Arbitrage Fund
Defendant:
Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., Robert C. Skaggs, Jr., Stephen P. Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
ALICEA et al v. CITY OF CAMDEN
as 1:2018cv00151
Plaintiff:
DAMIAN ALICEA , RUBIN ALICEA, JR. , WILLIAM F. ARMSTRONG and others
Defendant:
CITY OF CAMDEN
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
SMITH v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2017cv12235
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC ("IMERYS TALC") and others
Plaintiff:
CHARLES P. SMITH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
James Biggins v. Carl Danberg, et al
as 17-2319
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS
Defendant:
CARL C. DANBERG, T. CARROLL, R. KEARNEY and others
Defendant - Appellee:
RONALD WILLEY, R. CARTER, E. HEDDINGER and others
Rager v. Smith et al
as 3:2017cv00649
Plaintiff:
Ronald Ray Rager
Defendant:
P. Smith, O'Brien and Dr. Stanish
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mitchell v. Guido et al
as 3:2016cv02194
Plaintiff:
Jason E. Mitchell
Defendant:
Edward E. Guido, Matthew P. Smith and Stacy B. Wolf
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Chandler Smith v. Borough of Morrisville
as 16-1246
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHANDLER P. SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE, Pennsylvania
SMITH v. BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2015cv06541
Plaintiff:
CHANDLER P. SMITH
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv04747
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
SMITH v. BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE
as 2:2015mc00179
Appellant:
CHANDLER P. SMITH
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE
Cause Of Action: Motion for Leave to Appeal
Type:
Other Statutes
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.
