Cases 1 - 10 of 25
Hudda v. Hennessy et al
as 1:2024cv00449
Plaintiff:
Arif Hudda
Defendant:
Paul J. Hennessy, David K. Jones, Robert J. Mylod, Jr. and others
Jones v. Radovsky
as 4:2022cv01800
Petitioner:
David Emanul Jones
Respondent:
Warden Radovsky
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv03945
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Godlu v. Hennessy et al
as 1:2022cv00569
Plaintiff:
Atobrhan Godlu
Defendant:
Paul Hennessy, Robert J. Mylod, Jr., Scott A. Dahnke and others
Nominal Defendant:
Vroom, Inc.
CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP v. Boucher & James Inc. et al
as 2:2021cv04596
Plaintiff:
CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP
Defendant:
Boucher & James Inc., Ross Boucher, DAVID R. JONES and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
Daniel Warren v. Prime Care Medical Inc, et al
as 20-3561
Defendant:
THOMAS C. CREIGHTON, III, LISA SCHELLER, COUNTY OF LEHIGH and others
Defendant / Appellee:
DEBORAH WILSON, CARL HOFFMAN, JR., REBECCA F. DAVIS and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANIEL WARREN
MULHERN v. FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD et al
as 2:2019cv00671
Defendant:
RIVINDRA DEO, MICHAEL KENNEDY, RON MCCRAY and others
Plaintiff:
CAROL MULHERN
Petitioner:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 8470
JONES v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al
as 2:2018cv06831
Plaintiff:
DAVID WAYNE JONES
Defendant:
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ASTRAZENECA LP and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JONES v. OWENS et al
as 1:2017cv02634
Plaintiff:
DAVID T. JONES
Defendant:
DAVID S. OWENS and KAREN TAYLOR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL et al
as 1:2017cv00569
Plaintiff:
DAVID T. JONES
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL and DAVID OWENS
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.
