Cases 51 - 60 of 62
HOOD et al v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2012cv06395
Plaintiff:
TATANISHA HOOD, RONSHON BOWSER, DANTEE FORREST and others
Defendant:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SUPERIOR COURT OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY and CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ESTATE OF MARY LOU HOOD et al v. THE TOWNSHIP OF BELLEVILLE et al
as 2:2012cv00531
Plaintiff:
ESTATE OF MARY LOU HOOD and THE HEIRS AT LAW OF MARY LOU HOOD
Defendant:
THE TOWNSHIP OF BELLEVILLE , THE TOWNSHIP MANAGER OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BELLEVILLE and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-25
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2011cv05582
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
CRACOLICI v. BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
as 1:2010cv02482
Plaintiff:
BENEDICT CRACOLICI
Defendant:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, HOOD, HERBIK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOOD v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF PAROLE
as 3:2010cv01716
Plaintiff:
TATANISHA LASEAN HOOD
Defendant:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
HOFFENBERG v. GRONDOLSKY et al
as 1:2009cv04784
Plaintiff:
STEVEN JUDE HOFFENBERG
Defendant:
JEFF GRONDOLSKY, RICHARD HERBIK, ROBIN HOOD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ALHAMI v. RUMSFELD et al
as 2:2009cv01917
Plaintiff:
RAFIQ ALHAMI
Defendant:
DONALD RUMSFELD, RICHARD MYERS, GEOFFREY MILLER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
DRAKEFORD et al v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIB COMPANY
as 3:2009cv00726
Plaintiff:
SUSIE DRAKEFORD, DANIEL DRAKEFORD, REATHA TALIAFERRO-SMITH and others
Defendant:
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIB COMPANY
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
HOOD v. HARRIS DINER, INC. et al
as 2:2008cv05404
Plaintiff:
CURTIS HOOD
Defendant:
HARRIS DINER, INC. and WILLIAM NICHOLAS
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
