Cases 11 - 20 of 30
Foulke v. Colvin
as 3:2015cv02065
Plaintiff:
Myrna Foulke
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv00660
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv05869
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1601 Truth in Lending
ALLEN v. ERIE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al
as 1:2010cv00126
Plaintiff:
AUGUSTUS ALLEN , III
Defendant:
ERIE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, CITY OF ERIE, COUNTY OF ERIE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VEROSKO v. NOLAN et al
as 1:2010cv00025
Plaintiff:
DANIEL VEROSKO
Defendant:
MICHAEL NOLAN, DONALD DACUS, MATT BANACCI and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Alouisa v. Kohler Co.
as 4:2009cv01523
Plaintiff:
Taylor Foulke Alouisa
Defendant:
Kohler Co.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
JOHNSON v. HARLOW et al
as 1:2009cv00195
Petitioner:
WILLIE D. JOHNSON, III
Respondent:
MICHAEL W. HARLOW, BRADLEY H. FOULK and ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BEASON v. PALAKOVICH et al
as 1:2009cv00192
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER JAMEEL BEASON
Respondent:
JOHN A. PALAKOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and BRAD FOULK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SCUTELLA v. CHAMBERLAIN et al
as 1:2009cv00082
Petitioner:
JHEN SCUTELLA
Respondent:
D. M. CHAMBERLAIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PA and BRADLEY FOULK
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
FERGUSON v. DIGUGLIELMO et al
as 1:2009cv00072
Petitioner:
ANTONIO D. FERGUSON
Respondent:
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ERIE, BRADLEY H. FOULK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
