Cases 41 - 50 of 376
BEHERNS et al v. ARCONIC, INC.
as 2:2019cv02664
Plaintiff:
ALK HAXHISEFA, PAULOS TEKLE, HANIFE MACIT and others
Defendant:
ARCONIC, INC., ALCOA INC, SAINT-GOBAIN CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
DEARDORFF et al v. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC. et al
as 2:2019cv02642
Defendant:
CELLULAR SALES OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC. and CELLULAR SALES OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC
Plaintiff:
DAVID CHAPMAN and JESSICA DEARDORFF
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
JONES v. WILDCAT et al
as 2:2019cv02493
Defendant:
JUANITA HUGULEY, MELISSA DOUD, NICOLE CHAPMAN-REYNOLDS and others
Plaintiff:
ISIAH A. JONES, III
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
CHAPMAN v. A + HOME HEALTH CARE, LLC
as 2:2019cv02234
Defendant:
A + HOME HEALTH CARE, LLC
Plaintiff:
NICOLE CHAPMAN
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00588
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
Chapman et al v. United States Of America et al
as 3:2019cv00797
Plaintiff:
Susan Chapman and Douglas Chapman
Defendant:
United States Of America and Maria Pavlicka
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671
CHAPMAN v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2019cv01350
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ROBERT GILMORE and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER
Petitioner:
LA'QUANTA CHAPMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
KENNEDY v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2019cv01076
Defendant:
PAROLE AGENT CHAPMAN, SUPERVISOR DONNIE LYNCH, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and others
Plaintiff:
ARDELL KENNEDY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PRATER v. AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION et al
as 2:2018cv05515
Defendant:
JANE DOE, MATTHEW JAMES, JOH DOE and others
Plaintiff:
CHARMAINE PRATER
PAYNE v. ARAMARK CORP. et al
as 2:2018cv05201
Plaintiff:
LOWELL N. PAYNE, JR.
Defendant:
ARAMARK CORP., ANTHONY FRANKLIN, MARY BROWN 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.
