Cases 11 - 20 of 36
Henderson et al v. Adams et al
as 1:2018cv01371
Defendant:
Public Defender Catherine Himes, Judge Michael Flannelly, Judge Joseph Adams and others
Plaintiff:
Gregory Jackson, Franklin Jackson, Rashi Tyler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Garrett v. Pennymac Loan Services et al
as 3:2018cv00718
Plaintiff:
June Garrett
Defendant:
Pennymac Loan Services , Stanford L. Kurland , James K. Hunt and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2017cv00128
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
TUMULTY v. BARBER et al
as 3:2015cv00199
Plaintiff:
KATHY TUMULTY
Defendant:
MARY JO BARBER , STEVEN GLUNT and DUANE HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2015cv02834
Plaintiff:
DUANE JONES
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, JUSTIN FRANK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hadesty v. Rush Township Police Department et al
as 3:2014cv02319
Plaintiff:
Jeanette Hadesty
Defendant:
Rush Township Police Department, Duane Frederick, Adam Sinton and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JASON HILL v. THE BOROUGH OF DOYLESTOWN et al
as 2:2014cv02975
Plaintiff:
JASON HILL and ELSA HILL
Defendant:
THE BOROUGH OF DOYLESTOWN , THE CENTRAL BUCKS REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT , JAMES DONNELLY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MILLER v. EEOC
as 2:2014cv00347
Plaintiff:
DUANE MILLER
Defendant:
EEOC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Postie v. Frederick et al
as 3:2014cv00317
Plaintiff:
Frederick A. Postie
Defendant:
Sergeant Duane Frederick, Adam Sinton, Jr., Rush Township and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hughes v. Hess et al
as 3:2013cv02292
Plaintiff:
Deborah Hughes
Defendant:
Bradley J. Hess , Rush Township Police Department and Duane Frederick
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.
