Cases 51 - 60 of 256
Carl Robinson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 21-2832
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CARL ROBINSON
Defendant / Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY LYNNE ABRAHAM, MAYOR MICHAEL NUTTER and others
Maker v. Temple University
as 2:2021cv04120
Plaintiff:
Valentina Maker
Defendant:
Temple University
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv03946
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
HARLEY et al v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2021cv03877
Plaintiff:
ERIC RAFEK HARLEY, MARY HARLEY and OMAR BENSON MILLER
Defendant:
KAREEM ABD BENSON, KENYATTA BENSON, NAGI S. BENSON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SHEFCYK v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC. et al.
as 2:2021cv03413
Plaintiff:
KIMBERLY SHEFCYK
Defendant:
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, INC.,, TEMPLE PHYSICIANS, INC., HENRY SU, D.O. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv03200
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
NLRB v. Temple University Hospital, In
as 21-1124
Petitioner:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent:
Temple University Hospital, Inc.
Brooke Ryan, et al v. Temple University
as 21-2016
Defendant / Appellee:
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CHRISTINA FUSCA, on behalf of of herself all others similarly situated and BROOKE RYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Temple University Hospital v. NLRB
as 21-1111
Intervenor:
Temple Allied Professionals, Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professional
Respondent:
National Labor Relations Board
Petitioner:
Temple University Hospital, Inc.
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv01803
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
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.
