Cases 1 - 10 of 49
HOYE v. FAMILY COURTS
as 2:2023cv02112
Plaintiff:
NATHAN HOYE
Defendant:
FAMILY COURTS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
HOYE v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY COURTS et al
as 2:2023cv01996
Petitioner:
NATHAN HOYE
Respondent:
ALLEGHENY COUNTY COURTS, JUDGE SUSAN F. EVASHAVIK DILUCENTE and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2023cv01719
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
HOYE v. ZLOKAS
as 2:2023cv01701
Plaintiff:
NATHAN HOYE
Defendant:
MR. ELI ZLOKAS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
HOYE v. SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE
as 2:2023cv01689
Plaintiff:
NATHAN HOYE
Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
HOYE v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
as 2:2023cv01636
Plaintiff:
NATHAN HOYE
Defendant:
JOHNSON JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
HOYE v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2023cv01648
Plaintiff:
NATHAN HOYE
Defendant:
ALLEGHENY COUNTY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER and RISPERDAL MANUFACTURER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
HOYE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2022cv01015
Petitioner:
NATHAN HOYE
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY and WARDEN ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HOYE v. ALLEGHENY COURTS et al
as 2:2021cv00747
Respondent:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and ALLEGHENY COURTS
Petitioner:
NATHAN HOYE and NATHAN R. HOYE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HOYE v. SCI SOMERSET MEDICAL DEPT.
as 3:2021cv00026
Plaintiff:
NATHAN HOYE
Defendant:
SCI SOMERSET MEDICAL DEPT.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
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.
