Cases 41 - 50 of 225
GROHS et al v. SANTIAGO et al
as 2:2013cv03877
Plaintiff:
STEVEN GROHS, RAYFORD L. SMITH, KARL SIEGEL and others
Defendant:
SANTIAGO, BLEEKLY, B. DAVIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
UPSHUR v. NUTTER et al
as 2:2013cv01917
Plaintiff:
ALBERT WILLIAM UPSHUR
Defendant:
MICHAEL NUTTER, CHARLES J. CUNNINGHAM, A. MEANS RAYFORD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
UPSHUR et al v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2012cv03579
Plaintiff:
ALBERT UPSHUR, ESQ.
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 19TH DISTRICT POLICE DEPT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
POLK v. CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
as 2:2012cv00196
Plaintiff:
CHARLES POLK
Defendant:
CURRAN FROMHOLD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RAYFORD ALLEN MEANS, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CARMICHAEL v. 3M et al
as 2:2011cv66381
Plaintiff:
RAYFORD CARMICHAEL
Defendant:
3M, ALLIS CHALMERS CORPORATION PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
WILLIAMS v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
as 2:2010cv53953
Plaintiff:
RAYFORD E. WILLIAMS
Defendant:
A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 688
AHL et al v. ST. PAUL TRAVELERS
as 2:2010cv83102
Plaintiff:
RAYFORD AHL and LINDA AHL
Defendant:
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
AHL et al v. ST. PAUL TRAVELERS
as 2:2010cv83184
Plaintiff:
RAYFORD AHL and LINDA AHL
Defendant:
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
AHL et al v. ST. PAUL TRAVELERS
as 2:2010cv83224
Plaintiff:
RAYFORD AHL and LINDA AHL
Defendant:
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
AHL et al v. ST. PAUL TRAVELERS
as 2:2010cv82951
Plaintiff:
RAYFORD AHL and LINDA AHL
Defendant:
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS
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.
