Cases 11 - 18 of 18
David Schied v. Scott Snyder, et al
as 10-1176
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID SCHIED, on behalf of Student A
Defendant - Appellee:
SCOTT SNYDER, et al., DAVID SOEBBING, et al., HARVALEE SAUNTO, et al. and others
Brummell v. City of Harrisburg et al
as 1:2009cv01816
Plaintiff:
Ocie L. Brummell, Ocie L. Brummell and Ocie L. Brummell
Defendant:
City of Harrisburg, Charles Kellar and Marc Moule
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bell et al v. The City of Harrisburg et al
as 1:2008cv01563
Plaintiff:
Kate Bell , Kathy Bacon , Jennifer Bryson and others
Defendant:
The City of Harrisburg , Charles Kellar , Tina Manoogian-King and others
Movant:
Robert Jennings
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
NICHOLAS v. PAGE 397, LINE 4,5,6 AGG-ASSAULT-NOT-GUILTY et al
as 2:2007cv04975
Plaintiff:
EDWARD J. NICHOLAS
Defendant:
PAGE 397, LINE 4,5,6 AGG-ASSAULT-NOT-GUILTY, DEBBORAH RUGGERIO, ELLIZABETH LEFFLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
NICHOLAS v. MISDEMEANOR ENTRIES-AGG ASSAULT et al
as 2:2007cv04974
Plaintiff:
EDWARD JAMES NICHOLAS
Defendant:
MISDEMEANOR ENTRIES-AGG ASSAULT, HARRISBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, DONALD HEFFNER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
NICHOLAS v. DAUPHIN COUNTY COMMON PLEAS et al
as 3:2007cv02218
Plaintiff:
Edward J. Nicholas
Defendant:
Dauphin county common pleas, Lowell Witmer, Carolyn Thompson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
NICHOLAS v. DAUPHIN COUNTY COMMON PLEAS et al
as 1:2007cv00327
Plaintiff:
EDWARD J. NICHOLAS
Defendant:
DAUPHIN COUNTY COMMON PLEAS, LOWELL WITMER, CAROLYN THOMPSON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights
Adams v. Kellar
as 4:2007cv01103
Plaintiff:
Julian Adams
Defendant:
Charles Kellar and City of Harrisburg
Miscellaneous_party:
Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission
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.
