Cases 61 - 70 of 259
DOE v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH et al
as 2:2021cv00111
Defendant:
WENDELL HISSRICH, STEPHEN VINANSKY, CITY OF PITTSBURGH and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PETERSON et al v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY et al
as 2:2021cv00078
Plaintiff:
ROBERT PETERSON and REBECCA PETERSON
Defendant:
NORTHERN REGIONAL JOINT POLICE BOARD, NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOHN DOES 1-50 and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
LATTA v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH et al
as 2:2021cv00038
Defendant:
THOMAS GAULT, JOHN DOE #4, JOHN DOE #1 and others
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY LATTA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BLAIKLOCK v. RAGLAND et al
as 2:2021cv00026
Defendant:
OFFICER JOHN DOE, OFFICER DEREK SOOSE, OFFICER TAMERA MILLER and others
Plaintiff:
PETER BLAIKLOCK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TATE-JOHNSON v. DOE
as 1:2021cv00007
Defendant:
POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE
Plaintiff:
DAVAUGHN M. TATE-JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WANG v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH et al
as 2:2020cv01952
Defendant:
WILEY PERIODICALS, INC., UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PHYSICIANS, MARK GLADWIN and others
Plaintiff:
NORMAN WANG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
GATTS v. WILSON et al
as 2:2020cv01701
Defendant:
TROOPER COLIN J. HARRER, TROOPER STEPHEN A. ZOLLER, CORPORAL WESLEY WILSON and others
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY GATTS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
FORBES v. BOROUGH OF INDIANA et al
as 2:2020cv01515
Defendant:
JOSHUA HENNING, BOROUGH OF INDIANA and JOHN DOES 1-3
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW FORBES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HARRIS v. WILKIE et al
as 1:2020cv00297
Defendant:
CAROLYN DONNELL, ROBERT WILKIE, JOHN A. GENNARO and others
Plaintiff:
COREY L. HARRIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JACKSON v. BUTLER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2020cv01470
Defendant:
OFFICER BIZUB MYLES, OFFICER JOHN DOE, BUTLER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN J. JACKSON
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.
