Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Merle Royce v. Michael Needle, et al
as 19-2241
Defendant / Appellee:
BRADLEY M. GRIFFIN, INC., JOHN CARDULO & SONS, INC. and AMARI COMPANY, INC.
Appellee:
LAW FIRM OF COZEN O'CONNOR
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MERLE L. ROYCE
Defendant / Appellant:
MICHAEL R. NEEDLE
Merle L. Royce, et al v. Michael R. Needle
as 19-1054
Defendant / Appellee:
BRADLEY M. GRIFFIN, INC., JOHN CARDULO & SONS, INC. and AMARI COMPANY, INC.
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MERLE L. ROYCE
Appellee:
BAILEY BORLACK AND NADELHOFFER LLC and RICHARD JOSEPH COCHRAN
Defendant / Appellant:
MICHAEL R. NEEDLE
Merle Royce, et al v. Michael R. Needle P.C.
as 18-2850
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MERLE L. ROYCE
Defendant - Appellant:
MICHAEL R. NEEDLE P.C.
Defendant - Appellee:
AMARI COMPANY, INC., BRADLEY M. GRIFFIN, INC., CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
Appellee:
RICHARD JOSEPH COCHRAN and BAILEY BORLACK AND NADELHOFFER LLC
Merle Royce, et al v. Michael Needle
as 18-2851
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MERLE L. ROYCE
Defendant - Appellee:
AMARI COMPANY, INC., BRADLEY M. GRIFFIN, INC., CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
Defendant - Appellant:
MICHAEL R. NEEDLE
Appellee:
RICHARD JOSEPH COCHRAN and BAILEY BORLACK AND NADELHOFFER LLC
Merle Royce, et al v. Michael R. Needle P.C., et al
as 16-2190
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MERLE C. ROYCE
Appellant:
MICHAEL R. NEEDLE
Defendant - Appellant:
MICHAEL R. NEEDLE P.C.
Defendant - Appellee:
AMARI COMPANY, INC., BRADLEY M. GRIFFIN, INC., CHAMBERLAIN INDUSTRIES, INC. and others
Defendant:
JOHN CARDULO & SONS, INC.
Respondent - Appellee:
CAFFERTY, CLOBES, MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL, LLP and ANTHONY F. FATA
Royce v. Needle et al
as 1:2015cv00259
Plaintiff:
Merle Royce
Defendant:
Michael Needle, Amari Company, Inc. , Bradley M. Griffin, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1335
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv01425
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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.
