Cases 1 - 10 of 40
KREASHKO v. GILPIN TOWNSHIP et al
as 2:2024cv00288
Defendant:
SOUTHERN ARMSTRONG REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, GILPIN TOWNSHIP, GILPIN TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Plaintiff:
DENNIS KREASHKO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation
SMITH v. ARMEL et al
as 2:2022cv00973
Petitioner:
JAMES THOMAS SMITH
Respondent:
ERIC ARMEL, JOSH SHAPIRO and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WADSWORTH v. TICE et al
as 2:2022cv00608
Petitioner:
SHAWN MITCHELL WADSWORTH
Respondent:
ERIC TICE, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO and ARMSTRONG COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ARMSTRONG v. TICE et al
as 3:2022cv00076
Plaintiff:
KAREEM ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
ERIC TICE and PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ARMSTRONG v. CARR et al
as 3:2020cv00041
Defendant:
MISHLER, TIPTON, S. WIGGINS and others
Plaintiff:
KAREEM ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
ARMSTRONG v. FURMAN et al
as 3:2019cv00141
Plaintiff:
KAREEM ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
CAPTAIN JOSEPH FURMAN and JOSEPH DUPONT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
ARMSTRONG v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 1:2019cv00086
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Petitioner:
AMOS ARMSTRONG
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
KAMMERDIENER v. ARMSTRONG COUNTY et al
as 2:2018cv01484
Defendant:
ERIKA KIRKPATRICK, ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PHILLIP SHAFFER and others
Plaintiff:
RONALD E. KAMMERDIENER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
ARMSTRONG v. LUTHER et al
as 3:2018cv00086
Petitioner:
JEROME ARMSTRONG
Respondent:
JAMEY P. LUTHER and JOSH SHAPIRO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ARMSTRONG v. SUESSER et al
as 1:2017cv00265
Plaintiff:
KAREEM ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
SUESSER, DELANEY and BARBER
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.
