Cases 1 - 10 of 48
SPANN v. SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2023cv01566
Plaintiff:
ANTOINE SPANN
Defendant:
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL D. OVERMYER, TIMOTHY HOLMER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DAVIS v. PURCELL
as 2:2023cv00628
Plaintiff:
SHAWN DAVIS
Defendant:
LINDSEY PURCELL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
PURCELL v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY
as 2:2022cv00825
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL PURCELL, JR.
Defendant:
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 133
PURCELL et al v. HENNIG et al
as 2:2022cv00469
Defendant:
HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH P.C., ROB HENNIG and HENNIG RUIZ P.C.
Plaintiff:
CHRIS PURCELL and KIMBERLY GROOME
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
BRONSON v. MACGREGOR et al
as 2:2021cv05154
Plaintiff:
PURCELL BRONSON
Defendant:
SEAN MACGREGOR, JUDGE PATRICK and JUDGE DANIEL ANDERS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LAWSON v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2021cv04973
Plaintiff:
TYREE LAWSON
Defendant:
SECRETRAY JOHN WETZEL, KELLY LONG, MELLISSA SMITH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
United States of America et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
as 2:2021mc00026
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY GROOME, CHRIS PURCELL and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.
Purcell et al v. Blust
as 2:2021mc00022
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY GROOME, CHRIS PURCELL and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant:
Linda Blust
Cause Of Action: 31 U.S.C. § 3729 False Claims Act
United States of America et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al
as 2:2021mc00020
Respondent:
Jamie Kramar McPherson
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY GROOME, THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, CHRIS PURCELL and others
Defendant:
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.
United States of America et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al
as 2:2021mc00019
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY GROOME, THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, CHRIS PURCELL and others
Respondent:
Marc Aquino
Defendant:
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.
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.
