Cases 71 - 80 of 207
RAMIREZ v. SUPT. SCI CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS et al
as 5:2019cv01295
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON, SUPT. SCI CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS, COM OF PENNSYLVANIA and others
Petitioner:
GENESIS MATOS RAMIREZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WIEST v. LITITZ SPRINGS PARK
as 5:2019cv01008
Plaintiff:
LUCAS WIEST
Defendant:
LITITZ SPRINGS PARK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv05538
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ENCAPERA v. ENCAPERA et al
as 1:2018cv00387
Defendant:
ANDERSON, BOROUGH OF CALIFORNIA, PA, RICHARD ENCAPERA and others
Plaintiff:
DANA R. ENCAPERA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv02369
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
HOCKENBERRY v. SCI CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS/PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
as 1:2018cv00325
Defendant:
SCI CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS/PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Plaintiff:
LISA HOCKENBERRY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Lash v. Corbetts et al
as 1:2018cv02306
Defendant:
Tom Corbetts, Chancellor Woodson, Doctor Tan and others
Plaintiff:
Ken Lash
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
CALIPO v. CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS PRISON et al
as 1:2018cv00293
Defendant:
CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS PRISON and WARDEN LONNIE OLIVER
Plaintiff:
JULIA ANN CALIPO
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
McFarland, LP et al v. Firstline National Insurance Company
as 1:2018cv01663
Plaintiff:
McFarland, LP and Spring Village Apartments, LLC
Defendant:
Firstline National Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
McFarland, LP et al v. Harford Mutual Insurance Companies et al
as 1:2018cv01664
Defendant:
Penrose Properties, Inc., Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, TRC Companies, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Spring Village Apartments, LLC, McFarland, LP and Spring Village, LP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
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.
