Cases 21 - 30 of 46
McBride v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
as 5:2014cv00090
Plaintiff:
Robert McBride
Defendant:
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
McBride v. Colvin
as 4:2013cv01220
Defendant:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Plaintiff:
Robert McBride
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
McBride v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
as 3:2013cv01175
Plaintiff:
Robert McBride
Defendant:
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 45 U.S.C. § 51
United States v. McBride
as 13-4144
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ROBERT MCBRIDE
MCBRIDE v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2013cv01768
Petitioner:
ROND ROBERTS MCBRIDE
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and D.O.C. GRATERFORD SCI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McBride v. Wadesboro Police Department et al
as 3:2012de00727
Plaintiff:
Robert McBride
Defendant:
Wadesboro Police Department, FNU Zeus, B. H. Chewning and others
Cause Of Action: Prisoner Civil Rights
McBride et al v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc et al
as 6:2012cv02466
Plaintiff:
Leo Robert McBride and Barbara McBride
Defendant:
Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America Inc, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Maryland Casualty Company v. Carleton Properties, LLC et al
as 6:2012cv03412
Plaintiff:
Maryland Casualty Company
Defendant:
Carleton Properties, LLC, Kensington Place Development Group, LLC, Kimberley J. Carleton and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Robert McBride v. James Yates, et al
as 12-56571
Petitioner - Appellant:
ROBERT MCBRIDE
Respondent - Appellee:
JAMES A. YATES, Warden and KAMALA HARRIS
Shekar v. Kowalczyk et al
as 4:2012cv04049
Plaintiff:
Roger Shekar
Defendant:
Ronald B Kowalczyk, Kathleen Stover, Marylyn Prentice and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
