Cases 1 - 10 of 10
MOLDOVSKY et al v. MILLER
as 3:2021cv19418
Plaintiff:
BREM MOLDOVSKY and BREM MOLDOVSKY L.L.C.
Defendant:
JONATHAN MILLER and JONATHAN R. MILLER doing business as THE LAW FIRM OF JONATHAN R. MILLER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
In re: Jonathan Miller
as 21-1242
Respondent:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA
Petitioner:
In re: JONATHAN MILLER
WATERMAN v. Nielsen Holdings plc et al
as 2:2021cv00319
Defendant:
David Rawlinson, JONATHAN MILLER, Nancy Tellem and others
Plaintiff:
MARC WATERMAN
Oram v. Nielsen Holdings PLC et al
as 1:2021cv00067
Defendant:
James A. Attwood Jr., David Rawlinson, Karen M. Hoguet and others
Plaintiff:
Jeffrey Oram
PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al v. BROADRIDGE INVESTOR COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS, INC.
as 2:2015cv00405
Plaintiff:
PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and JONATHAN MILLER
Defendant:
BROADRIDGE INVESTOR COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jonathan Miller v. Superintendent Houtzdale SCI, et al
as 15-1154
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JONATHAN MILLER
Defendant - Appellee:
SUPERINTENDENT HOUTZDALE SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
In re: Jonathan Miller
as 15-1102
Petitioner:
In re: JONATHAN MILLER
Respondent:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA
MILLER v. GLUNT
as 2:2013cv04354
Petitioner:
JONATHAN MILLER
Respondent:
STEVEN GLUNT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jonathan Miller v. Steven Glunt, et al
as 12-3091
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JONATHAN MILLER
Defendant - Appellee:
BRYANT COLEMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and others
MILLER v. COLEMAN et al
as 2:2011cv01521
Petitioner:
JONATHAN MILLER
Respondent:
BRYANT COLEMAN, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
