Cases 41 - 50 of 74
In re: William Smith
as 14-2798
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: WILLIAM SMITH
Defendant - Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT RICHARDSON, BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
ROBERT B. KUGLER
RICHIE v. SCI-CAMP HILL
as 1:2013cv03054
Plaintiff:
Michael Richie
Defendant:
Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CARMAN v. AMBRIDGE BOROUGH et al
as 2:2013cv01726
Plaintiff:
PAUL WILLIAM CARMAN
Defendant:
AMBRIDGE BOROUGH, MAYOR RICHIE D'AMBROSIO, AMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RICHIE v. SCI-CAMP HILL
as 2:2013cv06803
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL RICHIE
Defendant:
SCI-CAMP HILL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
as 1:2013cv06770
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM SMITH
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ROBERT E. RICHARDSON, BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv01388
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
United States Of America v Decker et al
as 1:2013cv02324
Plaintiff:
United States Of America
Defendant:
Susan L. Decker and Richie T. Spicer
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
SEWELL et al v. DUBS et al
as 1:2013cv01212
Plaintiff:
Gregory Lee Sewell and Kristen H. Sewell
Defendant:
Dwayne Dubs, Daniel S. Bowman, Hanover Police Dept. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
SEWELL et al v. DUBS et al
as 2:2013cv02178
Plaintiff:
GREGORY LEE SEWELL and KRISTEN H. SEWELL
Defendant:
DWAYNE DUBS, DANIEL S. BOWMAN, HANOVER POLICE DEPT. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ROSARIO v. WILLIAMS et al
as 2:2013cv01945
Plaintiff:
JOSE ROSARIO
Defendant:
SETH WILLIAMS, JOHN DOYLE, EDWARD MCCANN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
