Cases 1 - 10 of 655
DeYoung v. Conner et al
as 4:2024cv01580
Plaintiff:
Executor Anna DeYoung
Defendant:
James Christopher Conner, Conner and Associates LLC d/b/a Franchise Marketing Systems, Greg Rondinelli and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Rossi, et al. v. Becker, et al.
as 24-2565
Petitioner:
STEPHEN ROSSI, KIM STEVENSON and HOWARD TARLOW
Respondent:
GREG W. BECKER, DANIEL J. BECK, KAREN HON and others
Doe v. Stevenson
as 1:2024cv02778
Plaintiff:
JANE DOE
Defendant:
Nathaniel Stevenson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
STEVENSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
as 2:2024cv00995
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH STEVENSON
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Motley v. Jakyra KayTriece Motley Estate et al.
as 24-254
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JASPER CORTEZ MOTLEY, SR., Moor Beneficiary, A Emperor, Admiral, Mariner, Merchant, Pilote private Moor aboriginal missourian national and Subject of the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire
Defendant / Appellee:
JAKYRA KAYTRIECE MOTLEY ESTATE, Beneficiary JAKYRA KAYTRIECE MOTLEY, JASPER CORTEZ MOTLEY JR. ESTATE, Beneficiary JASPER CORTEZ MOTLEY, JORDAN CHRISTOPHER MOTLEY ESTATE, Beneficiary JORDAN CHRISTOPHER MOTLEY and others
Stevenson, et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.
as 23-4338
Plaintiff / Appellee:
AYANA STEVENSON, DAVID AMBROSE and LISA RAMIREZ
Defendant / Appellant:
SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.
USA v. Garrett Stevenson
as 23-4020
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
GARRETT STEVENSON
Stevenson, et al. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.
as 23-4018
Plaintiff / Appellant:
AYANA STEVENSON, DAVID AMBROSE and LISA RAMIREZ
Defendant / Appellee:
SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.
US v. Christian Stevenson
as 23-4681
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
CHRISTIAN STEVENSON
Stevenson v. DVA
as 24-1077
Petitioner:
MICHAEL E. STEVENSON, JR.
Respondent:
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
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.
