Cases 21 - 30 of 504
Bogle v. Zaken et al
as 3:2022cv00071
Petitioner:
Floyd C. Bogle
Respondent:
Michael Zaken and Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DEANS v. FLOYD
as 1:2021cv00362
Plaintiff:
DARRIAN DEANS
Defendant:
AUGUSTUS FLOYD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
BULLARD v. CARNEY et al
as 2:2021cv05158
Plaintiff:
JAMES BULLARD
Defendant:
BLANCHE CARNEY, MICHELLE FARRELL, DEPUTY WILLIAMS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CICCOTELLI v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO. et al
as 2:2021cv04113
Plaintiff:
ALEX CICCOTELLI
Defendant:
CIMAREX ENERGY CO., THOMAS E JORDEN, PAUL N ECKLEY and others
Cause Of Action: 12 U.S.C. § 22
ABDUL-JABBAR et al v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2021cv02077
Plaintiff:
SHATISHA ABDUL-JABBAR, AL-AMIN ABDUL-JABBAR, SHARON BELL and others
Defendant:
OFFICER NATHAN LONDON, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FUGAZZI v. CAROTHERS
as 2:2021cv00277
Defendant:
ATTORNEY FLOYDE B. CAROTHERS
Plaintiff:
JOAN C. FUGAZZI
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
GORDON et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
as 2:2020cv06481
Defendant:
"XYZ CORP", MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., "JANE DOE" and others
Plaintiff:
FLOYD GORDON and JUDY GORDON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
EMERY et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
as 2:2020cv06106
Defendant:
"XYZ CORP", MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., "JANE DOE" and others
Plaintiff:
MARY LOUISE EMERY and FLOYD EMERY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
FLOYD v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
as 2:2020cv05610
Respondent:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Petitioner:
JOHN H. FLOYD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv01617
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
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.
