Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Jamor Demby v. County of Camden, et al
as 21-1433
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF CAMDEN, JOHNATHAN L. YOUNG, SR., COUNTY OF CAMDEN and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JAMOR J. DEMBY
DEMBY v. COUNTY OF CAMDEN et al
as 1:2020cv13892
Defendant:
EDWARD T. MCDONNELL, COUNTY OF CAMDEN, CITY OF CAMDEN and others
Plaintiff:
JAMOR J. DEMBY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Franchi v. AV Homes, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv01161
Defendant:
Roger W. Einiger, Michael F. Profenius, Aaron Ratner and others
Plaintiff:
Adam Franchi
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Zucker v. AV Homes, Inc. et al
as 1:2018cv01091
Defendant:
Roger W. Einiger, Roger A. Cregg, Aaron Ratner and others
Plaintiff:
Lawrence Zucker
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act
NASH v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC. et al
as 1:2016cv04007
Plaintiff:
WILLIE L. NASH
Defendant:
DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., DAIICHI SANKYO CO., LTD. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HOLLOWAY v. CAPPELLI et al
as 1:2013cv03378
Plaintiff:
ROSCOE HOLLOWAY
Defendant:
LOUIS CAPPELLI, JR., IAN K. LEONARD, JEFFERY L. NASH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
NASH v. ASTRUE
as 3:2012cv00258
Plaintiff:
EDWARD L. NASH
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
NASH v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
as 5:2011cv53706
Plaintiff:
GERALD L. NASH
Defendant:
A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 0688
NASH v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 3:2011cv03409
Plaintiff:
DAVID L. NASH
Defendant:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON, GREG BARTOWSKI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NASH et al v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP.
as 2:2011cv64996
Plaintiff:
HEZEKIAH L NASH and ESSIE M NASH
Defendant:
OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
