Cases 81 - 89 of 89
FOSTER J.D. v. SAMPSON et al
as 1:2008cv04680
Plaintiff:
IVAN D. FOSTER J.D.
Defendant:
SHAY SAMPSON, SAMPSON SECURITIES, SHERIFF BARTIE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2008cv01179
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
SHAY et al v. YUREWICZ
as 3:2008cv01246
Plaintiff:
Thomas Shay, Thomas Shay, Michele Shay and others
Defendant:
Madeline Yurewicz and Madeline Yurewicz
Cause Of Action: Diversity
GERMANTOWN FRIENDS SCHOOL et al v. SMALL et al
as 2:2008cv01124
Plaintiff:
GERMANTOWN FRIENDS SCHOOL and JUNE GONDI
Defendant:
DOUGLAS F. SMALL, WILLIAM CARLSON and MELANIE SHAY
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
SHAY et al v. YUREWICZ
as 2:2008cv00973
Plaintiff:
THOMAS SHAY and MICHELE SHAY
Defendant:
MADELINE YUREWICZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
NIELSEN et al v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. et al
as 2:2007cv06090
Plaintiff:
JEFFRY F. NIELSEN and MARGARET M. NIELSEN
Defendant:
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., STU MCCRAY, ALEXANDER ZURVANSKY and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 151 Labor: Review of Agency Action
Freeman v. Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2007cv02191
Plaintiff:
James Freeman
Defendant:
Department of Corrections, Joseph J. Piazza, Lt. Jordan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
WELSCH v. TOWNSHIP OF UPPER DARBY et al
as 2:2007cv04578
Plaintiff:
MARY WELSCH
Defendant:
RAYMOND SHAY, THOMAS JUDGE, JR., MICHAEL CHITWOOD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MONACO v. CITY OF CAMDEN et al
as 1:2004cv02406
Plaintiff:
STEVEN J. MONACO
Defendant:
CITY OF CAMDEN , JOHN DOES and SHAY SAMPSON
Cross_claimant:
CITY OF CAMDEN and CITY OF CAMDEN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Cross_defendant:
JOHN DOE, JOHN DOES and WAYNE LANDHAM
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
