Cases 41 - 50 of 112
LITTLES v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2016cv06182
Plaintiff:
RUDOLPH H. LITTLES
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RUDOLPH v. OWENS et al
as 1:2016cv06022
Plaintiff:
JERMAN RUDOLPH
Defendant:
JAMES OWENS, C. JOHNSON, CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF FREEHOLDERS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ANTON PAAR OPTOTEC GMBH v. RUDOLPH RESEARCH ANALYTICAL, INC.
as 3:2016cv03789
Plaintiff:
ANTON PAAR OPTOTEC GMBH
Defendant:
RUDOLPH RESEARCH ANALYTICAL, INC.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
SCHUHEN v. LENAPE REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
as 1:2016cv00962
Plaintiff:
RUDOLPH SCHUHEN
Defendant:
LENAPE REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601
ALLEN et al v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. et al
as 2:2015cv07284
Plaintiff:
CHARLES ALLEN , CARL BATISTE , GEORGE COYNE and others
Defendant:
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. and VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PURPURA v. CHRISTIE et al
as 3:2015cv03534
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS E. PURPURA
Defendant:
CHRIS CHRISTIE, STEVEN M. SWEENEY, VINCENT PRIETO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
CAMTEK USA, INC. v. RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
as 2:2015cv02758
Plaintiff:
CAMTEK USA, INC.
Defendant:
RUDOLPH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
TRAVERS v. ESSEX COUNTY et al
as 2:2015cv02508
Plaintiff:
RUDOLPH TRAVERS
Defendant:
ESSEX COUNTY, SHAZEDA SAMUDEEN and ESSEX COUNTY PROBATION DIVISION
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHTAINHORN, RUDOLPH AND JHANNA KRENTSEL v. ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY
as 3:2013cv07760
Plaintiff:
SHTAINHORN, RUDOLPH AND JHANNA KRENTSEL
Defendant:
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 4053
PETRELLA v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
as 2:2013cv07651
Plaintiff:
RUDOLPH R. PETRELLA
Defendant:
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 4053
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.
