Cases 1 - 10 of 16
GOMEZ v. MATOS TOWING et al
as 5:2022cv04371
Plaintiff:
LAWANDA GOMEZ
Defendant:
MATOS TOWING, MATTHEW GRIFFITH and WILLIAM FURSIN, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv00685
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv01109
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
ACOSTA et al v. DEMOCRATIC CITY COMMITTEE et al
as 2:2017cv01462
Plaintiff:
ORLANDO A. ACOSTA and EDWARD LLOYD
Defendant:
DEMOCRATIC CITY COMMITTEE, EMILIO VAZQUEZ, CARLOS MATOS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BRANTLEY et al v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2016cv02489
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE BRANTLEY and JONI RICE-BRANTLEY
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA , CHARLES H. RAMSEY , SEAN DEVLIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VONSCHLICHTEN v. WETZEL et al
as 5:2015cv05967
Plaintiff:
ERIC VONSCHLICHTEN
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, MICHAEL GREEN, JOHN BROWN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
PAPURT v. ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH NETWORK et al
as 5:2015cv02523
Plaintiff:
ROCHELLE A. PAPURT
Defendant:
ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH NETWORK , NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , NORTHAMPTON COUNTY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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 2:2013cv02648
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
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.
