Cases 71 - 80 of 751
Russell Tinsley v. Court of Common Pleas, et al
as 23-1174
Petitioner / Appellant:
RUSSELL TINSLEY
Respondent / Appellee:
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, LAWRENCE S. KRASNER and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Tinsley v. Davol, Inc et al
as 2:2023cv00315
Plaintiff:
ROBERT A. TINSLEY
Defendant:
Davol, Inc and C.R. Bard, Inc
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 8:2023cv00006
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
TINSLEY v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
as 2:2022cv05116
Plaintiff:
TERRENCE TINSLEY
Defendant:
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Barlow-Johnson et al v. Tinsley
as 3:2022cv03215
Plaintiff:
Kendra Barlow-Johnson and Justin Dennis
Defendant:
William Tinsley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action
Willie Smith v. Harold Clarke
as 22-7194
Petitioner / Appellant:
WILLIE TINSLEY SMITH
Respondent / Appellee:
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
Tinsley v. Falkenrath
as 4:2022cv01019
Petitioner:
Robert Tinsley, Sr. and Robert M. Tinsley, Sr.
Respondent:
Superintendent Doris Falkenrath
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tinsley v. Fox et al
as 5:2022cv00115
Plaintiff:
Andrew L. Tinsley
Defendant:
Det. T. Fox, B. Ward, L. Payne and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 nr Notice of Removal
Tinsley v. Social Security Administration
as 4:2022cv00370
Plaintiff:
Dana Tinsley
Defendant:
Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Rash & Tinsley, Inc v. Scottsdale Insurance Company
as 1:2022cv00334
Plaintiff:
Rash & Tinsley Inc doing business as County Line Beverage Barn
Defendant:
Scottsdale Insurance Company
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
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.
