Cases 1 - 10 of 12
MOJKA KAZANCHY et al v. TOWNSHIP OF RANDOLPH et al
as 2:2024cv04115
Plaintiff:
ASHLEY MOJKA KAZANCHY and BRIAN KAZANCHY
Defendant:
TOWNSHIP OF RANDOLPH, GREG POFF, DARREN CARNEY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00444
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv09075
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
POFF v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC. et al
as 3:2020cv01532
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC.
Plaintiff:
DONNA POFF
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HARMON et al v. BOROUGH OF BELMAR et al
as 3:2017cv02437
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY HARMON , MATTHEW HARMON , DCJ BELMAR, INC and others
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF BELMAR, MATTHEW DOHERTY, COLLEEN CONNOLLY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Joyelle Poff v. Prime Care Medical Inc
as 16-3109
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JOYELLE D. POFF
Defendant - Appellant:
PRIME CARE MEDICAL INC
Joyelle Poff v. Prime Care Medical Inc
as 16-3108
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JOYELLE D. POFF
Defendant - Appellant:
PRIME CARE MEDICAL INC
Joyelle Poff v. Prime Care Medical Inc
as 15-3598
Plaintiff - Appellee:
JOYELLE D. POFF
Defendant - Appellant:
PRIME CARE MEDICAL INC
LRB's Country Road House et al v. Montgomery Borough et al
as 4:2015cv01673
Plaintiff:
LRB's Country Road House and Lomon Brunson
Defendant:
Montgomery Borough , Alfred Poff and John Does
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2014cv00707
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
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.
