Cases 1 - 10 of 11
SPENCER v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2018cv03205
Respondent:
JOSHUA SHAPIRO and MARK CAPOZZA
Petitioner:
VINCENT D. SPENCER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PRITT et al v. MEC CONSTRUCTION LLC.
as 2:2017cv00575
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN PRITT and RICHARD D. SPENCER
Defendant:
MEC CONSTRUCTION LLC.
Mediator:
KENNETH J. BENSON
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
WASHINGTON v. BODER et al
as 5:2014cv04972
Plaintiff:
ALVIN WASHINGTON
Defendant:
JUSTIN BODER, JOHN T ADAMS, ADAM JOSEPH HOFFMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SPENCER v. ECKER et al
as 2:2014cv04128
Petitioner:
DELOS D. SPENCER
Respondent:
ECKER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BRADFORD and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2013cv00382
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
SPENCER v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
as 2:2010cv55819
Plaintiff:
GILBERT D SPENCER
Defendant:
A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST
Cause Of Action: 46 U.S.C. § 688
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2010cv02940
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BARNARD et al v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al
as 2:2010cv01304
Plaintiff:
TALBOTT BARNARD , DONALD B. BIGGERSTAFF , SUSAN BIGGERSTAFF and others
Defendant:
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
SPENCER v. SEATRAIN LINES, INC.
as 2:2010cv34176
Plaintiff:
GENE D. SPENCER
Defendant:
SEATRAIN LINES, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2009cv00260
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination
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.
