Cases 11 - 20 of 170
STOCKTON v. HARRY et al
as 1:2024cv00034
Plaintiff:
RONALD STOCKTON
Defendant:
LAUREL HARRY, G. LETTLE, G. LITTLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00155
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
BRUNO v. ROUNDHOUSE CYCLES, INC.
as 3:2024cv00005
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER BRUNO
Defendant:
ROUNDHOUSE CYCLES, INC. doing business as ROUNDHOUSE HARLEY-DAVIDSON
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
TAYLOR v. HALLER
as 2:2023cv01955
Plaintiff:
ASHLEIGH M. TAYLOR
Defendant:
ALEXANDER TOY HALLER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1330 Breach of Contract
WASHINGTON v. IRWIN et al
as 1:2023cv00291
Plaintiff:
JEROME JUNIOR WASHINGTON
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT RANDY IRWIN and MAJOR J. ALEXANDER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00237
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
BREHM v. JOHNSTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT
as 3:2023cv00229
Plaintiff:
ALEXANDER SHANE BREHM
Defendant:
JOHNSTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE BRADLEY CRIST, THE CITY OF JOHNSTOWN OF PA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
TAYLOR v. HONORABLE DAVID ACKER et al
as 2:2023cv01489
Petitioner:
ASHLEIGH M. TAYLOR
Respondent:
HONORABLE DAVID ACKER and ALEXANDER ROY HALLER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01545
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
JOHNSON v. IRWIN et al
as 1:2023cv00252
Plaintiff:
TRAVON JOHNSON
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT RANDY IRWIN, GUSTATSON, MAJOR ALEXANDER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
