Cases 1 - 9 of 9
JENKINS v. ARMSTRONG COUNTY et al
as 2:2024cv00619
Plaintiff:
JANET L JENKINS
Defendant:
ARMSTRONG COUNTY, Warden PHILLIP SHAFFER, Doctor JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
WINDSHEIMER et al v. WEST HOMESTEAD BOROUGH et al
as 2:2024cv00620
Plaintiff:
LEXIS WINDSHEIMER and KAYONA SMART
Defendant:
WEST HOMESTEAD BOROUGH, WEST HOMESTEAD POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHARLES ROZZO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
FANTINO et al v. COUNTY OF WESTMORELAND et al
as 2:2021cv00910
Plaintiff:
JOHN FANTINO and DEBBIE FANTINO
Defendant:
COUNTY OF WESTMORELAND, WESTMORELAND COUNTY PRISON, JOHN R. WALTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CESSNA v. ARMSTRONG COUNTY et al
as 2:2014cv00864
Plaintiff:
TODD CESSNA
Defendant:
ARMSTRONG COUNTY, DAVID HOGUE, DAVID HARTMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WATTERSON et al v. ARMSTRONG COUNTY et al
as 2:2013cv01267
Plaintiff:
CLARENCE WATTERSON and MARTHA WATTERSON
Defendant:
ARMSTRONG COUNTY, DAVID HOGUE, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCARDLE v. HUFNAGEL et al
as 1:2012cv00326
Defendant:
DANIEL F. CUSICK, JOHN DOE, ANNE M. MCARDLE and others
Plaintiff:
PAUL J. MCARDLE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROE v. SENECA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al
as 2:2010cv00543
Plaintiff:
JANE DOE
Defendant:
SENECA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DONALD J. TYLINSKI, MARK KORCINSKY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GREEN v. CITY OF MCKEESPORT et al
as 2:2008cv00898
Plaintiff:
LAKEYA GREEN
Defendant:
CITY OF MCKEESPORT, JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
DOSWELL et al v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH et al
as 2:2007cv00761
Plaintiff:
THOMAS DOSWELL and RAYMOND THOMAS LOWRY
Defendant:
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, HERMAN WOLF, JOHN DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
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.
