Cases 31 - 40 of 196
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv02164
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Trustee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0158
Scholfield v. Chandler
as 1:2017cv00587
Plaintiff:
Genevieve Scholfield
Defendant:
Camelia Chandler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
FARGIONE et al v. SWEENEY et al
as 5:2016cv05878
Plaintiff:
JENNIFER L. FARGIONE and JUDY L. PAVELKO
Defendant:
EDWARD SWEENEY, JANINE DONATE, JOHN/JANE DOE MEDICAL DIRECTOR and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CHANDLER v. COLVIN
as 2:2016cv04516
Plaintiff:
TERRI ANN CHANDLER
Defendant:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
SMITH v. BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2015cv06541
Plaintiff:
CHANDLER P. SMITH
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Velazquez v. Chandler
as 3:2015cv02023
Petitioner:
Withberto Velazquez
Respondent:
Rodney W Chandler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. CHANDLER
as 2:2015cv05069
Plaintiff:
J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Defendant:
KEITH CHANDLER
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 553
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv04747
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
SMITH v. BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE
as 2:2015mc00179
Appellant:
CHANDLER P. SMITH
Defendant:
BOROUGH OF MORRISVILLE
Cause Of Action: Motion for Leave to Appeal
Type:
Other Statutes
CHANDLER et al v. DESALVO et al
as 2:2015cv03637
Plaintiff:
TERRELL CHANDLER , SHAROD BENSON , KEVIN REX and others
Defendant:
MARY JANE DESALVO , JOSEPH DESALVO , CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
