Cases 11 - 20 of 42
IRIZARRY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2020cv00066
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff:
EDWIN IRIZARRY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv04296
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
IRIZARRY et al v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al
as 5:2018cv04232
Plaintiff:
ANDREA IRIZARRY and MANUEL IRIZARRY
Defendant:
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC, JOHN DOE DISTRIBUTION, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
IRIZARRY v. ABRAHAM et al
as 2:2018cv00587
Plaintiff:
ROLANDO IRIZARRY
Defendant:
J. ABRAHAM, ROYAL, FULTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROEBUCK v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2017cv01930
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY ROEBUCK
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT , WALTER BARTLE , NATHAN RAMOS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WORRELL v. IRIZARRY et al
as 2:2015cv05153
Plaintiff:
CINDY WORRELL
Defendant:
JOSE IRIZARRY and MCDONALD'S USA, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Irizarry et al v. City of Hazleton et al
as 3:2015cv01140
Plaintiff:
George Irizarry and Tina Irizarry
Defendant:
City of Hazleton , Anthony Panzarella , Robert Ferdinand and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
IRIZARRY-INGEL v. COLEMAN et al
as 5:2014cv04536
Petitioner:
ERIC IRIZARRY-INGEL
Respondent:
BRIAN COLEMAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
IRIZARRY-INGLES v. COLEMAN et al
as 2:2014cv01013
Petitioner:
ERIC IRIZARRY-INGEL
Respondent:
BRIAN COLEMAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
NOBREGA v. IRIZARRY et al
as 3:2013cv02176
Plaintiff:
Domingos Nobrega
Defendant:
Sal Irizarry and David J. Ebbert
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
