Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Hogan v. Nautilus Insurance Company
as 2:2022cv04784
Plaintiff:
Tom Hogan
Defendant:
Nautilus Insurance Company
Interested Party:
Hurricane Ida Program Administrator
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract
HAMM v. ZAGORSKIE et al
as 2:2020cv04659
Defendant:
TOM HOGAN, RONALD C. NAGLE, CHARLES (LAST NAME UNKNOWN) and others
Plaintiff:
ANCELL EUGENE HAMM
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MINA v. CHESTER COUNTY et al
as 2:2018cv02455
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY STOCKER MINA
Defendant:
CHESTER COUNTY, TOM HOGAN, WEST CHESTER, PA BOROUGH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
KEEHN v. TROUTMANN et al
as 2:2018cv00493
Plaintiff:
GERALD K. KEEHN
Defendant:
TROUTMANN, CHIEF OF POLICE, JOSH MAXWELL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCPHERRON v. STATE OF NEW YORK
as 2:2016cv06324
Petitioner:
PATRICK MCPHERRON
Respondent:
TOM HOGAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
HAMM v. KI-MOON et al
as 2:2014cv06350
Plaintiff:
ANCELL EUGENE HAMM
Defendant:
BAN KI-MOON, JOHN KERRY, ERIC HOLDER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hamm v. Ki-moon et al
as 1:2014cv08574
Plaintiff:
Ancell Eugene Hamm
Defendant:
Ban Ki-moon, John Kerry, Eric Holder and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hicks v. Schnuck Markets, Inc. et al
as 3:2014cv00439
Plaintiff:
Brenda Hicks
Defendant:
Schnuck Markets, Inc. , Van Brockman and Tom Hogan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Michael Adams v. David Osborne, et al
as 13-5447
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL BRANDON ADAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
JEFF NANCE, officially as CC3 and individually, RUSTY HALL, officially as Classification Coordinator and individually, DEAN HALL, officially as Disciplinary Board Chairman and individually and others
Adams v. Osborne et al
as 3:2011cv00599
Plaintiff:
Michael Brandon Adams
Defendant:
David Osborne, Gary Murray, Jeff Nance 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.
