Cases 1 - 10 of 50
John Miller v. Thomas Nelling, et al
as 23-2788
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN RYAN MILLER
Defendant / Appellee:
THOMAS NELLING, THOMAS GOGGIN, JOHN O'DONNELL and others
Defendant:
JOSEPH ELIAS, TRACEY LAWS, MITCHELL ROCK and others
OLIVEIRA v CITY OF NORTH WILDWOOD et al
as 1:2023cv20838
Plaintiff:
danielle oliveira
Defendant:
CITY OF WILDWOOD, CITY OF NORTH WILDWOOD, NORTH WILDWOOD PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Stevenson v. Ellis
as 1:2023cv00573
Plaintiff:
Terrence Stevenson
Defendant:
David Ellis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
MILLER v. GOGGIN et al
as 2:2022cv03329
Plaintiff:
JOHN RYAN MILLER
Defendant:
THOMAS NELLING, JOSEPH ELIAS, TRACEY LAWS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
KING, JR. v. BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC et al
as 2:2022cv04981
Plaintiff:
JERRY L. KING, JR.
Defendant:
BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, MICHAEL BROCK, JASON BRANHAM and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
KING, JR. v. BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC et al
as 1:2022cv04981
Plaintiff:
JERRY L. KING, JR.
Defendant:
BROCK & SCOTT, PLLC, MICHAEL BROCK, JASON BRANHAM and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv00445
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
BATISTA v. STEVENSON et al
as 1:2021cv18252
Plaintiff:
JON BATISTA
Defendant:
GARY STEVENSON, SUSAN JACOBUCCI and GEORJEAN WIDENER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv18722
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COHEN v. STEVENSON et al
as 2:2020cv04341
Defendant:
CITIBANK, NA, RUSSELL STEVENSON and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Plaintiff:
MARTIN L. COHEN
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.
