Cases 61 - 70 of 206
DEWAYNE POOLE v. USA
as 2:2014cv01320
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
DEWAYNE POOLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
BOYER et al v. HARVEST TRANS, INC. et al
as 5:2014cv04567
Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER BOYER and PAUL BICSAK
Defendant:
HARVEST TRANS, INC., EMILIO PEREZ-PAZMINO, INTER POOL, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1452
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00906
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
POOLE et al v. K-MART, INC.
as 2:2014cv02372
Plaintiff:
RENEE POOLE
Defendant:
K-MART, INC.
Movant:
KMART CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
McLaud v. Industrial Resources, Inc. et al
as 3:2014cv00737
Plaintiff:
Ashley McLaud
Defendant:
Industrial Resources, Inc., Inductrial Resources of Michigan, LLC, Industrial Resources of Michigan and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CARLTON POOLS, INC. v. HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.
as 2:2014cv00955
Plaintiff:
CARLTON POOLS, INC.
Defendant:
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
LCP et al v. PFIZER, INC. et al
as 2:2013cv06868
Plaintiff:
LCP , BRANDY POOLE and JEFFREY POOLE
Defendant:
PFIZER, INC. and GREENSTONE, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
MYERS et al v. MCKESSON CORPORATION et al
as 2:2013cv05823
Plaintiff:
SAMONA MYERS , GLORIA NEIMARK , MARIA NICKERSON and others
Defendant:
MCKESSON CORPORATION and SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv01165
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
POOLE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2013cv03722
Petitioner:
PERRY POOLE
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
