Cases 1 - 10 of 35
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00341
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
KUHN v. WILLFORD
as 2:2024cv01123
Plaintiff:
PETER KUHN
Defendant:
JOVAN WILLFORD
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
WILKINSON v. TARGET CORPORATION et al
as 2:2023cv03732
Plaintiff:
JOVAN WILKINSON
Defendant:
TARGET CORPORATION and KEVIN SPEAR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv02477
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Jovan Toussaint v. Attorney General United States of America
as 22-2094
Petitioner:
JOVAN GERARD TOUSSAINT
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Dana Johnson v. District Attorney Allegheny County, et al
as 22-1999
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DANA JOVAN JOHNSON
Defendant / Appellee:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY, SUPERINTENDENT COAL TOWNSHIP SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Whitlock v. Spaulding
as 1:2022cv00639
Petitioner:
Jovan Whitlock
Respondent:
Warden Stephen Spaulding
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jovan Jones v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 22-1359
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOVAN JONES
Defendant / Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAMS v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC et al
as 3:2021cv05448
In Re:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Defendant:
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC
Plaintiff:
JOVAN WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
SMITH v. GOODWATER et al
as 2:2021cv00392
Defendant:
PATRICIA GOODWATER and JOVAN GOODWATER
Plaintiff:
TAHNEE SMITH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391
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.
