Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Jose Morales Godinez v. Levi Morales Godinez
as 23-2194
Plaintiff / Appellee:
JOSE LUIS MORALES GODINEZ
Defendant / Appellant:
LEVI HELEM MORALES GODINEZ
Jose Morales, III v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, et al
as 23-1621
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOSE MIGUAL MORALES, III
Defendant / Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT ROCKVIEW SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Morales, III v. Salamon et al
as 3:2022cv01438
Petitioner:
Jose Miguel Morales, III
Respondent:
Beth Salamon and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GODINEZ v. GODINEZ
as 3:2022cv03596
Plaintiff:
JOSE LUIS GODINEZ
Defendant:
LEVI HELEM MORALES GODINEZ
Petitioner:
JOSE LUIS MORALES GODINEZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345 ij Injunction Relief
JOHNSON v. MORALES et al
as 2:2022cv00642
Plaintiff:
JAMES JOHNSON
Defendant:
JOSE A. MORALES, JR., FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. and GENESIS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
MORALES v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY NORTH AMERICA
as 5:2019cv02239
Plaintiff:
JOSE R. MORALES
Defendant:
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY NORTH AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1001
MORALES v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTION et al
as 2:2017cv03254
Plaintiff:
JOSE VASQUEZ MORALES
Defendant:
CORRECT CARE SOLUTION, MARIROSA LAMAS and TOMLIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MORALES v. SCI CHESTER
as 2:2016cv00385
Petitioner:
JOSE VAZQUEZ MORALES
Respondent:
SCI CHESTER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MORALES v. FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY
as 2:2011cv39485
Plaintiff:
JOSE A MORALES
Defendant:
FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 0688
FLORES v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST et al
as 2:2010cv39872
Plaintiff:
JOSE L MORALES FLORES
Defendant:
A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ACANDS, INC., ACORN IRON & SUPPLY CO. and others
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 688
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.
