Cases 41 - 48 of 48
OLCESE et al v. THOMAS et al
as 2:2009cv06076
Plaintiff:
ROSE MARY OLCESE and JOSEPH URBANO
Defendant:
DEWEY T. THOMAS, RON CAMPBELL, CROMARTIE TRANSPORTATION LINES and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (
THOMAS et al v. A.C. AND S., INC. et al
as 2:2009cv84190
Plaintiff:
JOE T. THOMAS, SR. and JOE T. THOMAS, SR.
Defendant:
A.C. AND S., INC., A.P. GREEN SERVICES, INC., A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Cummings v. Crumb, et al
as 09-2750
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM BRANDON CUMMINGS, Sovereign
Defendant - Appellee:
CRUMB, VOJACEK, BRIAN COLEMAN and others
THOMAS v. ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv72740
Plaintiff:
JAMES T. THOMAS
Defendant:
ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC., AEROQUUIP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AEROQUIP CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
THOMAS v. ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv72744
Plaintiff:
LARRY T. THOMAS
Defendant:
ABCO INDUSTRIES, INC., AEROQUUIP INTERNATIONAL, INC., AEROQUIP CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
THOMAS v. E.D. BULLARD et al
as 2:2008cv61095
Plaintiff:
WILL T. THOMAS, WILL T. THOMAS, WILL T. THOMAS and others
Defendant:
E.D. BULLARD, ATLAS TURNER, INC., ATLAS TURNER, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
THOMAS v. STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PINE GROVE et al
as 2:2007cv01031
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER T. THOMAS
Respondent:
STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PINE GROVE, PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
THOMAS v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT et al
as 3:2007cv03017
Plaintiff:
TERRANCE T THOMAS
Defendant:
MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT, USA, S. LOFFA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
