Cases 91 - 100 of 144
ELDEB v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
as 1:2016cv02189
Plaintiff:
JAMES ELDEB
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
WYDLER v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
as 1:2016cv01897
Plaintiff:
HANS WYDLER
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv01692
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION/IBT et al v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, a D.C. corporation
as 1:2016cv01109
Plaintiff:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION/IBT and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 151
SMITH v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
as 1:2016cv01070
Plaintiff:
ROBERT SMITH
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 151
VASS v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
as 1:2016cv00386
Plaintiff:
JEANETTE VASS
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00261
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv00119
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
RABER v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
as 1:2015cv02166
Plaintiff:
CATHERINE RABER
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
WRIGHT v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION et al
as 1:2015cv02021
Plaintiff:
WANDA J. WRIGHT
Defendant:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION and AMTRAK POLICE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE NEW JERSEY LODGE 189
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
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.
