Cases 41 - 50 of 1,165
HENRY v. GARMAN et al
as 2:2016cv04612
Petitioner:
CLARENCE HENRY
Respondent:
MARK GARMAN, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHIL. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
YOUNG v. MOSLEY et al
as 2:2016cv03976
Plaintiff:
CLARENCE YOUNG
Defendant:
RICHARD MOSLEY and SERVICE ENERGY TRANSPORT, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
WALLACE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv02128
Petitioner:
CLARENCE WALLACE
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ALEXANDER et al v. JACKSON et al
as 2:2016cv01714
Plaintiff:
CLARENCE ALEXANDER , CHRISTIAN REYES and TANIA BARREIRO
Defendant:
ANTHONY JACKSON , WARNER, GORMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. KNIGHT PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. et al
as 5:2016cv01505
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and J. OLSON
Defendant:
KNIGHT PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. and CLARENCE K. RUTT
Cause Of Action: 26 U.S.C. § 7604
SELLERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv01518
Plaintiff:
CLARENCE SELLERS
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
HALL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv01537
Petitioner:
CLARENCE HALL
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
DONNELLY v. KUTZTOWN AREA TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. et al
as 5:2016cv01128
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL DONNELLY
Defendant:
KUTZTOWN AREA TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. , CLARENCE E. HOWELL and MATTHEW K. ANGSTADT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
PORCH et al v. KML LAW GROUP, P.C. et al
as 2:2016cv00890
Plaintiff:
CLARENCE J. PORCH and DARLENE D. PORCH
Defendant:
KML LAW GROUP, P.C. and MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv06687
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
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.
