Cases 31 - 40 of 87
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv01432
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
HULL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2014cv03429
Petitioner:
BRENT LAMAR HULL
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Banks et al v. Cessan et al
as 1:2014cv00955
Plaintiff:
Frederick Banks
Defendant:
Robert Cessan, David Huton, Joy Flowers Conti and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
ALEXANDER et al v. FOCUS FIBER SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. et al
as 5:2014cv01681
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY ALEXANDER , CHAD ALLRED , CHARLES BILLS and others
Defendant:
FOCUS FIBER SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., BEACON ENTERPRISE GROUP, INC., CMK RESOURCE GROUP L.L.C. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
HULL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2013cv06858
Plaintiff:
CLYDE THOMAS HULL
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
HULL v. FOLINO et al
as 2:2013cv00839
Petitioner:
JOHN M. HULL
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Banks v. Anesburg et al
as 1:2013cv01621
Plaintiff:
Frederick Banks
Defendant:
Anesburg, Mary McCollum, Thompson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Morrow v. Hull et al
as 3:2013cv00613
Plaintiff:
John Boyd Morrow
Defendant:
Mike Hull, John Powilson and Applegate Inc. and Owner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Morrow v. Hull et al
as 3:2013cv00309
Plaintiff:
John Boyd Morrow
Defendant:
Mike Hull, John Powilson and Applegate Inc. and Owner
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DONNELLY v. NUTTER et al
as 2:2012cv06391
Plaintiff:
DANIEL DONNELLY
Defendant:
MICHAEL NUTTER, LOUIS GIORLA, JOHN DELANEY and others
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.
