Cases 11 - 20 of 29
CONNOLLY v. FONSECA et al
as 3:2014cv03741
Plaintiff:
RYAN CONNOLLY
Defendant:
JOSE A. FONSECA and W.E. PRAY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CONNOLLY v. FONSECA et al
as 3:2014cv03742
Plaintiff:
DANIELLE CONNOLLY
Defendant:
JOSE A. FONSECA and W.E. PRAY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv01076
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Pray v. Zickefouse
as 3:2012cv02604
Petitioner:
Mark Pray
Respondent:
D. Zickefouse
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
NWEGBO v. COLWYN BOROUGH et al
as 2:2012cv05063
Plaintiff:
SUNDAY NWEGBO
Defendant:
COLWYN BOROUGH , WENDELL REED , CLINTON CRADOCK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv04696
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CLARK et al v. COLWYN BOROUGH et al
as 2:2012cv03668
Plaintiff:
MAURICE J. CLARK, SR. , KEVIN E. BANKS, SR. , BRYANT K. STERLING and others
Defendant:
COLWYN BOROUGH, WENDELL REED, SHERRI BEDFORD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MCDERMOTT v. BOROUGH OF COLWYN, PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2012cv03411
Plaintiff:
PLUNKETT MCDERMOTT
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF COLWYN, PENNSYLVANIA , TONETTE PRAY , JOHN CACCIUTTI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BAUMANN et al v. E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
as 2:2012cv03128
Plaintiff:
PAMELA BAUMANN , TIMOTHY BRUDERS , GREGORY GLIDDEN and others
Defendant:
E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PRAY v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al
as 2:2011cv67780
Plaintiff:
HERBERT PRAY
Defendant:
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY , CBS CORPORATION , AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
