Cases 21 - 30 of 81
JONES v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al
as 2:2018cv04277
Plaintiff:
TINSLEY JONES
Defendant:
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP , ASTRAZENECA LP and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
TINSLEY v. SCHUCK et al
as 2:2017cv05190
Plaintiff:
DOUGLAS TINSLEY
Defendant:
JAMES F. SCHUCK, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and JANE/JOHN DOES 1-25
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TINSLEY v. PADULA et al
as 3:2017cv11427
Plaintiff:
MAUREEN F. TINSLEY
Defendant:
MICHAEL A. PADULA , US POSTAL SERVICES and JOHN DOES 1 - 5
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1364
TINSLEY v. LAING
as 2:2017cv03824
Plaintiff:
KATRISHA TINSLEY
Defendant:
MATTHEW LAING, SR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
KING v. PADULA et al
as 3:2017cv05443
Plaintiff:
TANYA KING
Defendant:
MICHAEL A. PADULA, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AT NEPTUNE NEW JERSEY, POSTAL DEPARTMENT and others
Cause Of Action: 39 U.S.C. § 409
Tinsley v. Bittenbender
as 3:2016cv02505
Plaintiff:
Theodore Tinsley
Defendant:
Kevin Bittenbender
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
TINSLEY v. CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
as 1:2016cv09217
Plaintiff:
WARREN A. TINSLEY
Defendant:
CAMDEN COUNTY JAIL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
COHEN v. TINSLEY et al
as 2:2016mc00210
Plaintiff:
JEFFREY COHEN
Defendant:
JOHN TINSLEY and REGULATORY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
Cause Of Action: Motion for Order
Type:
Other Statutes
Russell Tinsley v. Merrill Main, et al
as 16-3320
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RUSSELL TINSLEY, and on behalf of residents at STU in similar situation problems, et
Defendant - Appellee:
MERRILL MAIN, STU Clinical Director, SHERRY YATES, Department of Corrections, SHANTAY BRAIM ADAMS, Unit Director and others
TINSLEY v. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER et al
as 2:2016cv04102
Petitioner:
RUSSELL TINSLEY
Respondent:
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY and SHERRY YATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
