Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Blanford v. Dooley et al
as 9:2020cv00270
Defendant:
Broome County Court and Kevin P. Dooley
Plaintiff:
Stephen R. Blanford
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Blanford v. Dooley et al
as 9:2020cv00219
Defendant:
Adam Valls, Superintendent of Elmira Corr. Fac., Joseph Zikuski and others
Plaintiff:
Stephen R. Blanford
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dooley v. USA
as 1:2016cv01418
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
John L. Dooley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Conklin v. Bowen et al
as 9:2014cv01098
Plaintiff:
Joshua Conklin
Defendant:
M. Bowen, T. Gavin, J. Dooley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pitre et al v. Shenandoah et al
as 5:2014cv00293
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Pitre, Sr. and Awenha Pitre
Defendant:
Lorrie A. Shenandoah, James Dooley, Onondaga Social Services Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Westmere Fire District v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al
as 1:2013cv00786
Plaintiff:
Westmere Fire District
Defendant:
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Dooley Mack Constructors of New York, LLC
Counter_claimant:
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Counter_defendant:
Westmere Fire District
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract
Conklin v. Bowen et al
as 9:2012cv01478
Plaintiff:
Joshua Conklin
Defendant:
M. Bowen, T. Gavin and J. Dooley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Dooley v. Astrue
as 3:2012cv01307
Plaintiff:
Maxine Dooley
Defendant:
Michael Astrue
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Singleton v. Byers et al
as 9:2012cv01294
Plaintiff:
Michael A. Singleton
Defendant:
William Byers, B. Mckie, W. Eggleton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Meehan v. Smith et al
as 9:2012cv01280
Plaintiff:
Dennis Meehan
Defendant:
Martin E. Smith, William M. Kenville, William R. Humphrey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
