Cases 31 - 40 of 147
BEAUMONT v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES
as 2:2019cv00918
Defendant:
ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES
Plaintiff:
MAUREEN BEAUMONT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
YODER v. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MONTGOMERY CTY et al
as 2:2019cv01274
Defendant:
MS. TERRY, CHESTER COUNTY PROBATION, PAROLE & PRETRIAL SERVICES, MR. MICHAEL FALIN and others
Plaintiff:
CYNTHIA M. YODER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00612
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
HUGHES v. PET SUPPLIES PLUS/U.S.A., INC. et al
as 2:2018cv04869
Defendant:
PET SUPPLIES PLUS/U.S.A., INC. and PSP STORES LLC
Plaintiff:
MAUREEN HUGHES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
WATSON v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2018cv04399
Defendant:
MICHAEL KENNEDY, DONALD CAIN, MAUREEN SNYDER and others
Plaintiff:
CARDEL (KHALID) WATSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
LEE v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL-EPISCOPAL CAMPUS et al
as 2:2018cv04303
Defendant:
SIDDHARTHA SAGREIYA OR SAGVEIYA, "UNKNOWN" SHELLENBERGER, MEGAN SMITH and others
Plaintiff:
CURTIS LEE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Johnson v. Reynolds et al
as 4:2018cv01862
Defendant:
Daniel Barrett, Nathan Ross, Daniel Reynolds and others
Plaintiff:
Howard Johnson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv02450
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
TCHATCHOUA v. PETERMAN et al
as 2:2017cv01619
Plaintiff:
MAXWELL TCHATCHOUA
Defendant:
JOHN PETERMAN, BERNARD SCOTT, JEREMY ERKEL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
v. COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX et al
as 2:2017cv09408
Defendant:
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, MILDRED SCOTT and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency Act
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.
