Cases 1 - 8 of 8
In re: Edward Nicholas
as 26-1283
Petitioner:
In re: EDWARD JAMES NICHOLAS
Respondent:
THOMAS MARINO, MATHER WELICHOVITCH, ADA, MARTIN L. WADE and others
Tyrea Golden, et al v. Lycoming County Narcotics Enforcement Unit, et al
as 25-3291
Plaintiff:
JAMAL BENNETT, (Creditor) by special visitation and TYREA GOLDEN, (Creditor)
Defendant:
LYCOMING COUNTY NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT UNIT, CITY OF WILLIAMSPORT, TOWNSHIP OF WILLIAMSPORT and others
Buie v. Miller et al
as 4:2025cv00574
Plaintiff:
Jarron Wade Durielle Buie
Defendant:
Matthew L. Miller, Ruby Wade, Martin L. Wade and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
BOYER V US
as 09-5038
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Andrew J. Bruner, Calvin S. Pavey, Christopher S. Harvey and others
Defendant-Appellee:
United States
Baytree Capital Assoicates, L.L.C. et al v. Nolan Quan et al
as 2:2008cv02822
Defendant:
Access Media Networks, Inc., Access Media Technologies, L.L.C., Alchemy Communicatin Inc. and others
Cross Defendant:
Access Media Technologies LLC, Broadcaster LLC, Michael Gardner and others
Counter Defendant:
Baytree Capital Associates, LLC and Roes
Plaintiff:
Baytree Capital Assoicates, L.L.C.
Counter Claimant:
Broadcaster, Inc.
Cross Claimant:
Broadcaster, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Gardner v. Wade
as 1:2008cv02850
Plaintiff:
Michael Gardner
Defendant:
Martin R. Wade, III and Martin R. Wade, III
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Baytree Capital Associates, L.L.C. v. Quan et al
as 1:2008cv01602
Plaintiff:
Baytree Capital Associates, L.L.C.
Defendant:
Nolan Quan, Martin R. Wade, III, Blair Mills and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78 m(a) Securities Exchange Act
BOYER, et al v. USA
as 1:2000cv00641
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN BOYER , COSTAN C. DIAZ , NOE IRIZARRY and others
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491
Type:
Other Statutes
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.
