Cases 1 - 10 of 12
DENT v. IRWIN
as 1:2023cv00170
Petitioner:
RICHARD WILSON DENT and ROBERT WILSON DENT
Respondent:
RANDY IRWIN, ELLIOT L. SMEAL, DANIEL McCARTIN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. JRD Trucking, LLC et al
as 3:2021cv02161
Plaintiff:
BMO Harris Bank N.A.
Defendant:
JRD Trucking, LLC and Richard Wilson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Riley et al v. Clark et al
as 4:2020cv00325
Defendant:
Chris Haines, Greg Mendenhall, UPMC Pinnacle and others
Plaintiff:
Carmen Riley and Thomas Matthews
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BRETT v. PUCOLLO et al
as 2:2018cv04634
Defendant:
BARRY KNIGHT, FLOYD WHECHEN, DEACON FITZPATRICK and others
Plaintiff:
FRANK BRETT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv00651
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Markle v. Adams
as 4:2018cv00157
Plaintiff:
Joseph Robert Markle
Defendant:
Michael R. Adams, Heather Shaffer-Rockwell, Richard Wilson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BRETT v. BRADY et al
as 2:2017cv05295
Plaintiff:
FRANK BRETT
Defendant:
ROBERT BRADY, STEVE CARRAMUCHE, JOE MILLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BRETT v. SAMPSON et al
as 5:2017cv05017
Plaintiff:
FRANK BRETT
Defendant:
LAURA SAMPSON, JOE MILLER, SALVATORE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
WILSON v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE HOLDINGS (AMERICAS) INC.
as 2:2010cv06421
Plaintiff:
RICHARD WILSON
Defendant:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE HOLDINGS (AMERICAS) INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
WILSON v. PHILA. PRISON SYSTEMS MEDICAL STAFF CFCF et al
as 2:2009cv02961
Plaintiff:
RICHARD WILSON
Defendant:
PHILA. PRISON SYSTEMS MEDICAL STAFF CFCF, COULK , BURKE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 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.
