Cases 21 - 30 of 36
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 15-2790
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
BUTLER v. LAMONT et al
as 5:2014cv03733
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY BUTLER
Defendant:
CONRAD LAMONT, JOHN/JANE DOE GUARDS #1-X, JOHN/JANE DOE SUPERVISORS #1-X and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2013cv05145
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2013cv05052
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
HAYMAN v. MILLER et al
as 5:2013cv04108
Plaintiff:
KYLE HAYMAN
Defendant:
JASON MILLER, MIKE BATEMAN , COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON, PENNSYLVANIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Jose Xenos v. Paul Singley, et al
as 12-4043
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSE FREMONDE XENOS
Defendant - Appellee:
PAUL SINGLEY, INTENSIVE SUPERVISION COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER, MARIE D. BARTOSH, CHIEF ADULT PROBATION OFFICER, NORTHAMPTON CTY DEPT OF ADULT PROBATION and others
ANDRESEN v. COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON et al
as 5:2011cv07582
Plaintiff:
JON ANDRESEN
Defendant:
COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON, ROBERT MEYERS, TODD BUSKIRK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
XENOS v. SINGLEY et al
as 5:2011cv01550
Plaintiff:
JOSE FREMONDE XENOS
Defendant:
PAUL SINGLEY, MARIE D. BARTOSH, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ADULT PROBATION and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
XENOS v. JOHN DOE I et al
as 5:2011cv01488
Plaintiff:
JOSE FREMONDE XENOS
Defendant:
JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, MICHAEL WESTON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
KEMMERER v. COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON et al
as 5:2009cv01704
Plaintiff:
HENRY R. KEMMERER
Defendant:
COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON and TODD L. BUSKIRK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
