Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Carl Johnson v. Superintendent Dallas SCI, et al
as 21-2234
Defendant / Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT DALLAS SCI, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CARL JOHNSON
JOHNSON v. RANSOM et al
as 2:2019cv02694
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, KEVIN RANSOM and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
CARL JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv01521
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY CARL JOHNSON
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
MILLS et al v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON et al
as 3:2012cv04337
Plaintiff:
MAE MILLS , PATRICIA L. JOHNSON , CARL JOHNSON and others
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ETHICON, INC., GYNECARE WORLDWIDE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JOHNSON v. PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM
as 2:2011cv00282
Plaintiff:
CARL JOHNSON
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
USA v. Carl Johnson
as 10-3972
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
CARL JOHNSON
JOHNSON v. CAREY CANADA INC et al
as 2:2010cv68419
Plaintiff:
CARL JOHNSON
Defendant:
CAREY CANADA INC , CELOTEX CORPORATION , DURODYNE EAST CORP and others
Intervenor:
VENTFABRICS INC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JOHNSON et al v. CAREY CANADA INC et al
as 2:2009cv60767
Plaintiff:
CARL JOHNSON
Defendant:
CAREY CANADA INC, CAREY CANADA INC, CELOTEX CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 08-3922
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
JOHNSON v. GAF CORPORATION et al
as 2:2008cv84454
Plaintiff:
CARL JOHNSON, CARL JOHNSON and CARL JOHNSON
Defendant:
GAF CORPORATION, HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., ACANDS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
