Cases 41 - 50 of 1,696
William Cummings v. Thomas McGinley, et al
as 24-1082
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM BRANDON CUMMINGS
Defendant:
THOMAS S. MCGINLEY, Deputy Superintendent, CHRISTOPHER SYMONS, Deputy Superintendent, C.O. LUKE ERDMAN and others
SCOTT et al v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 3:2023cv00315
Plaintiff:
EARNEST SCOTT, JR. and CHRISTOPHER JAMES ROBERTS
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LAUREL R. HARRY, JAMES C. BARNACLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv02055
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
EVANS v. THOMPSON et al
as 1:2023cv00346
Petitioner:
MARQUICE EVANS
Respondent:
PATRICIA THOMPSON, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
EVANS v. THE GENSIGHT GROUP INC. et al
as 2:2023cv05121
Plaintiff:
CHERYL EVANS
Defendant:
THE GENSIGHT GROUP INC. doing business as GENSIGHT and MICHAEL MENARD
MCGILLVARY v. SCUTARI et al
as 1:2023cv22605
Plaintiff:
CALEB L. MCGILLVARY
Defendant:
NICHOLAS SCUTARI, NETFLIX, THEODORE ROMANKOW and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
EARLS v. COLLINS et al
as 3:2023cv00303
Plaintiff:
CHARLES RAYMOND EARLS, III
Defendant:
JOHN COLLINS, BARR, TIPTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY v. SQUARE DEAL CONSTRUCTION et al
as 2:2023cv22492
Plaintiff:
CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY
Defendant:
SQUARE DEAL CONSTRUCTION, EVAN BURKE, Lysander Chan and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-3113
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
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.
