Cases 41 - 50 of 48,384
MCINNIS v. ADC CONTRACTING & SUPPLY et al
as 2:2022cv02779
Plaintiff:
LISA MCINNIS
Defendant:
ADC CONTRACTING & SUPPLY, AEROQUIP, ALLEN BRADLEY COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442 Notice of Removal
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00743
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
WADSWORTH v. TICE et al
as 2:2022cv00608
Petitioner:
SHAWN MITCHELL WADSWORTH
Respondent:
ERIC TICE, ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH SHAPIRO and ARMSTRONG COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ARMSTRONG v. TICE et al
as 3:2022cv00076
Plaintiff:
KAREEM ARMSTRONG
Defendant:
ERIC TICE and PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv01623
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
Armstrong, Jr. v. Carvajal et al
as 3:2021cv01602
Petitioner:
James Bernard Armstrong, Jr.
Respondent:
Michael J. Carvajal, Scott Finley and Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv04598
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Laurenceau v. Armstrong et al
as 1:2021cv01351
Plaintiff:
Myrlene Laurenceau
Defendant:
David Armstrong and Pamela Armstrong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP v. MARTORELLO et al
as 2:2021cv03631
Plaintiff:
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
Defendant:
MATT MARTORELLO, REBECCA MARTORELLO, JUSTIN MARTORELLO and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ZAMICHIELI v. MIHAL et al
as 3:2021cv01246
Plaintiff:
Lamont Zamichieli
Defendant:
Betty Lou Mihal, Trojan, Lt. Armstrong and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
