Cases 71 - 80 of 163
JOHNSON v. GRADY et al
as 2:2017cv03665
Plaintiff:
ANTON TYRONE JOHNSON
Defendant:
KRISTEN GRADY, RONALD PHILLIPS, STEPHINE MCGLOCKLAND and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PURISIMA v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2017cv05312
Plaintiff:
ANTON PURISIMA
Defendant:
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT POLICE DEPARTMENT, GREYHOUND BUS LINES CORPORATION , GREYHOUND LINES INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RUDOLPH RESEARCH ANALYTICAL, INC. v. ANTON PAAR OPTOTEC, GMBH
as 3:2017cv04273
Plaintiff:
RUDOLPH RESEARCH ANALYTICAL, INC.
Defendant:
ANTON PAAR OPTOTEC, GMBH and Anton Paar USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
COCHRAN v. LANE et al
as 2:2017cv02342
Petitioner:
ANTON COCHRAN
Respondent:
JAY LANE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
GATSON v. O'CONNOR et al
as 3:2017cv02712
Plaintiff:
MALCOLM GATSON
Defendant:
AMY O'CONNOR and ANTON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GATSON v. ANTON
as 3:2017cv02710
Plaintiff:
MALCOLM GATSON
Defendant:
ANTON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PURISIMA v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2016cv05628
Plaintiff:
ANTON PURISIMA
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, MICHAEL JOSEPH MORRISSEY, AMTRAK POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ANTON PAAR OPTOTEC GMBH v. RUDOLPH RESEARCH ANALYTICAL, INC.
as 3:2016cv03789
Plaintiff:
ANTON PAAR OPTOTEC GMBH
Defendant:
RUDOLPH RESEARCH ANALYTICAL, INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
PURISIMA v. TD BANK et al
as 1:2016cv02906
Plaintiff:
ANTON PURISIMA
Defendant:
TD BANK, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA and DOES 1-1.3 BILLION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
PURISIMA v. HOBOKEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER et al
as 2:2016cv02195
Plaintiff:
ANTON PURISIMA
Defendant:
HOBOKEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, CARE POINT HEALTH, HEATHER KOTUSKI, MD. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 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.
