Cases 1 - 10 of 17
Austin et al v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al
as 2:2024cv01149
Plaintiff:
Tommie Austin, Paulsen Bronston, Patricia Brooks and others
Defendant:
NOVO NORDISK INC., NOVO NORDISK PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES L.P., NOVO NORDISK RESEARCH CENTER SEATTLE INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
MAGGITTI v. MAHON et al
as 2:2023cv04359
Plaintiff:
URVE MAGGITTI
Defendant:
WILLIAM P. MAHON, JOHN HALL, DEBRA TODD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
RIMSYS, INC. v. COHN
as 2:2023cv01630
Plaintiff:
RIMSYS, INC. and RIMSYS, INC
Defendant:
KAREN COHN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
MAGGITTI v. HON. BRET M. BINDER et al
as 2:2023cv02273
Plaintiff:
URVE MAGGITTI
Defendant:
HON. BRET M. BINDER, HON. ANTHONY T. VERWEY, HON. WILLIAM P. MAHON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
RILEY v. COHEN
as 2:2020cv06521
Defendant:
JACOB COHEN and JACOB COHN
Plaintiff:
LISA RILEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv02857
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
COHN v. UTICA FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
as 2:2017cv05414
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE COHN
Defendant:
UTICA FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
MICKMAN v. SALAMAN, GRAYSON AND HENRY et al
as 2:2017cv02452
Plaintiff:
ELAINE MICKMAN
Defendant:
SALAMAN, GRAYSON AND HENRY, CLIFFORD B. COHN and DREW SALAMAN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COHN v. BRAZZO
as 2:2016cv01358
Plaintiff:
FLORENCE SMERCONISH COHN
Defendant:
VIOLET BRAZZO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
ABRAMS et al v. THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2016cv00638
Plaintiff:
SHERESE ABRAMS
Defendant:
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, JOHN W. PERSON, JR., MARY D. COLINS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
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.
