Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Ally v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2022cv00634
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Michael Omar Ally
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, NFL, United States of America and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
P. v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
as 2:2020cv05928
Plaintiff:
E. P.
Defendant:
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
ROBINSON v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2020cv04529
Defendant:
OFFICER DAVE HENRY, MAYOR MICHAEL NUTTER, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and others
Plaintiff:
CARL ROBINSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BOYD v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS et al
as 2:2020cv03058
Defendant:
JOHN STEINHART, DR. THOMAS LEHMAN, DR. LITTLES and others
Plaintiff:
FRANCIS BOYD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY et al
as 2:2016cv02568
Plaintiff:
WALTER JAMES SMITH
Defendant:
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY SECURITY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wicks v. Macbenlee-Brown et al
as 3:2013cv02048
Petitioner:
David Bryant Wicks
Respondent:
Renita Camile Macbenlee-Brown, Colleran Firm & Associates, Vani Dadolu and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROBINSON v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES et al
as 2:2011cv04667
Plaintiff:
DAVID LEE ROBINSON
Defendant:
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SERVICES, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY PHYSICIAN INC., TEMPLE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BROWN v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL et al
as 2:2009cv04830
Plaintiff:
COREY ANGELO BROWN
Defendant:
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, ROBERT W. JYUNG and ROBERT W. JYUNG
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ROYSTER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2008cv05661
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, A.D.A. FORCETTIE, ROBERT MILLS and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
