Cases 21 - 30 of 87
GREEN et al v. ROSEN et al
as 2:2019cv01192
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL GREEN and GWENDOLYN GREEN
Defendant:
OURISMAN IMPORTS, INC. and JAMES ROSEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Greene v. Warden
as 4:2019cv00376
Petitioner:
Michael Greene
Respondent:
Warden and PA Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Greene v. Warden et al
as 4:2019cv00024
Petitioner:
Michael Greene
Respondent:
Warden and PA Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
GREEN v. VENTNOR BEAUTY SUPPLY, INC. et al
as 1:2018cv15673
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL GREEN
Defendant:
ADAM PRUSSEL, GENE MASCO, ATLANTIC CITY BEAUTY SUPPLY, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
KORNAFEL v. GALLOWAY et al
as 2:2018cv03241
Defendant:
G. MICHAEL GREEN, CHRISTINE F. GANNON, DOROTHY M. GALLAGHER and others
Plaintiff:
STANLEY E. KORNAFEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GREEN v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al
as 2:2018cv05517
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL GREEN
Defendant:
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ASTRAZENECA LP and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Carroll v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
as 3:2017cv02238
Plaintiff:
Wesley Carroll
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Edward Burke, John Talaber and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Carroll v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
as 3:2017cv02170
Plaintiff:
Wesley Carroll
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Edward Burke, John Talaber and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv04907
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
GREEN v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
as 1:2016cv06728
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL GREEN
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
