Cases 31 - 40 of 150
AIKINS v. M&T BANK et al
as 1:2022cv02610
Plaintiff:
BRUCE AIKINS
Defendant:
M&T BANK, ETC EQUITIES and PNC BANK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Fraud
SULLIVAN v. WISLER et al
as 2:2022cv02704
Plaintiff:
Stephen Sullivan
Defendant:
Michael Wisler, Matt Egyhazy, Rick Hair and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.
H. Gurvey, et alIn re: H. Gurvey, et al
as 22-1713
Petitioner:
In re: H. SCOTT GURVEY and AMY R. GURVEY
Respondent:
HONORABLE GLENN GRANT, HONORABLE STUART RABNER, HONORABLE THOMAS MOORE, Esq. and others
AIKINS v. M&T BANK et al
as 1:2022cv00320
Plaintiff:
BRUCE AIKINS
Defendant:
M&T BANK and PNC BANK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Michael Siano v. M&T Bank, et al
as 22-1205
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MICHAEL PATRICK SIANO
Defendant / Appellee:
M&T BANK and PARKER MCCAY
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00620
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv01849
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
H. Gurvey, et al v. M&T Bank Inc, et al
as 21-2936
Plaintiff / Appellant:
H. SCOTT GURVEY and AMY R. GURVEY
Defendant / Appellee:
M&T BANK INC, a NY Banking Corporation and SCHILLER KNAPP LEFKOWITZ & HERTZEL LLP
Appellee:
AARON M. BENDER and REED SMITH LLP
H. Gurvey, et al v. Glenn Grant, et al
as 21-2953
Plaintiff / Appellant:
H. SCOTT GURVEY and AMY R. GURVEY
Defendant:
HONORABLE GLENN GRANT, HONORABLE STUART RABNER, HONORABLE THOMAS MOORE, Esq. and others
GURVEY et al v. GRANT et al
as 2:2021cv16397
Plaintiff:
H. SCOTT GURVEY and AMY R. GURVEY
Defendant:
HON. GLENN A. GRANT, HON. STUART RABNER, HON. THOMAS MOORE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
