Cases 71 - 80 of 235
PEARSON v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DAPARMENT et al
as 2:2016cv00530
Plaintiff:
RODNEY PEARSON
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA POLICE DAPARMENT, ANDREW MILLER, JEFFREY DEACON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PEARSON v. PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM
as 2:2016cv00240
Plaintiff:
RODNEY PEARSON
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, MAYOR JIM KINNEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PEARSON v. KRASLEY
as 5:2016cv00066
Plaintiff:
ISAAC BILAL PEARSON
Defendant:
JASON KRASLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv01331
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv03970
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
ALLEN v. SMITH et al
as 2:2015cv03112
Plaintiff:
PERCY ALLEN
Defendant:
SMITH, MOYER, PEARSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RUSHING v. PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM et al
as 2:2015cv02853
Plaintiff:
VIRGIL RUSHING
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA PRISON SYSTEM, KAREN M. BRYANT, MARTIN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pearson v. Eckard et al
as 1:2015cv00510
Petitioner:
Maurice Pearson
Respondent:
James Eckard and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Pearson v. Colvin
as 3:2015cv00300
Plaintiff:
Jacqueline Jean Pearson
Defendant:
Carolyn W Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. et al v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. et al
as 2:2014cv07233
Plaintiff:
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. , BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC. , NORIDIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and others
Defendant:
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC. , ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. , AMERICAN MEDICAL SOLUTIONS HOLDINGS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
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.
