Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Road-Con Inc, et al v. City of Philadelphia, et al
as 23-1782
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ROAD-CON INC, NESHAMINY CONSTRUCTORS INC, LOFTUS CONSTRUCTION INC and others
Defendant / Appellee:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and JAMES KENNEY, In his Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Philadelphia
Intervenor / Appellee:
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION INC, Penn-Del-Jersey Chapter and MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA INC, DBA Mechanical and Service Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. THACKRAY CRANE RENTAL, INC. et al
as 5:2023cv01651
Plaintiff:
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
3Rd Party Plaintiff:
THACKRAY CRANE RENTAL, INC.
Defendant:
WITMAN ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS, LLC
Cross Claimant:
NESHAMINY CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
3Rd Party Defendant:
THE CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY and MATTIOLA SERVICES, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
McFarland, LP et al v. Harford Mutual Insurance Companies et al
as 1:2018cv01664
Defendant:
Penrose Properties, Inc., Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, TRC Companies, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Spring Village Apartments, LLC, McFarland, LP and Spring Village, LP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
NESHAMINY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. EFCO CORP.
as 3:2012cv07349
Plaintiff:
NESHAMINY CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
Defendant:
EFCO CORP.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
Neshaminy Constructors, Inc v. Federal Insurance Co, et al
as 12-3063
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NESHAMINY CONSTRUCTORS, INC
Defendant - Appellee:
FEDERAL INSURANCE CO and THE CHUBB CORPORATION
NESHAMINY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al
as 2:2011cv07168
Plaintiff:
NESHAMINY CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
Defendant:
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and THE CHUBB CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
