Cases 11 - 20 of 33
HOLDEN v. FISCUS et al
as 1:2021cv00062
Plaintiff:
SHAVEZ HOLDEN and SHAWVEZ NELSON
Defendant:
THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, M. OVERMYER, Z. MOSLAK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
PERRIN v. WALKER et al
as 2:2020cv05608
Defendant:
SUPERINTENDENT JAMIE SORBER, CORRECTIONAL SGT. J. WALKER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER READY and others
Plaintiff:
ISAIAH PERRIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PEPE v. LAMAS et al
as 2:2019cv03067
Defendant:
MS. J. WALKER, MS. NOVAK, MS. NEKO BOURNE and others
Plaintiff:
MR. DAVID WILSON PEPE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WALKER v. GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL et al
as 2:2018cv02724
Plaintiff:
BRANDON J. WALKER
Defendant:
GEORGE W. HILL CORRECTIONAL, ANDERSON, ROLLIN PAYETEE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. v. THE CUE FACTORY, LLC et al
as 2:2016cv04835
Plaintiff:
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.
Defendant:
THE CUE FACTORY, LLC and BRIAN J. WALKER, JR.
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
Reid-Douglas v. Geroulo et al
as 1:2016cv00441
Plaintiff:
Steven Reid-Douglas
Defendant:
Vito P. Geroulo, Michael Barrasse, Amy Corrigan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WALKER v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2015cv00627
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM J. WALKER, JR.
Defendant:
JOHN E. WETZEL, KEVIN KAUFFMAN, DIANE KAGARISE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Walker v. Wetzel et al
as 3:2015cv00391
Plaintiff:
William J Walker, Jr.
Defendant:
John E. Wetzel, Kevin Kauffman, Diane Kagarise and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WALKER v. MANVILLE CORPORATION ASBESTOS DISEASE COMPENSATION FUND
as 2:2011cv55016
Plaintiff:
THOMAS J WALKER
Defendant:
MANVILLE CORPORATION ASBESTOS DISEASE COMPENSATION FUND
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 0688
WALKER v. FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY
as 2:2011cv54500
Plaintiff:
THOMAS J. WALKER
Defendant:
FOSTER WHEELER COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 0688
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.
