Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01923
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
COX et al v. LANCASTER TOWNSHIP et al
as 2:2023cv01548
Plaintiff:
DAVID N. COX, II, HEATHER K. COX and COXS AG SERVICES, LLC
Defendant:
LANCASTER TOWNSHIP, MICHAEL CORNELL, CHRISTOPHER ALTMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00187
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
RANTILLA et al v. STRYKER CORPORATION
as 2:2021cv01172
Defendant:
STRYKER CORPORATION, HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., HYPERBRANCH MEDICAL TECH, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
BARBARA S. RANTILLA and ROY RANTILLA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv00887
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
EYAJAN v. NESCO RESOURCE LLC et al
as 1:2019cv00034
Defendant:
BILL KAYDO, RANDY EDWARDS, COMMUNITY HEALTH NET and others
Plaintiff:
SHEILA MARIE EYAJAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
CARTER v. KANE et al
as 1:2016cv00033
Plaintiff:
HOWARD A. CARTER
Defendant:
KATHLEEN G. KANE, ROBERT E. COLVILLE, STEPHEN A. ZAPPALLA, JR. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CARTER v. KANE et al
as 1:2016cv00007
Plaintiff:
HOWARD A. CARTER
Defendant:
KATHLEEN G. KANE, BRIAN COLEMEN, DARRELL O. DUGAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2015cv01000
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
WHITLEY v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY et al
as 2:2007cv00403
Plaintiff:
DREW WHITLEY
Defendant:
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, THOMAS M. FITZGERALD and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
