Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Kenneth Brown, et al v. John Antony Blinken, et al
as 22-3459
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KENNETH ANDERSON BROWN, Moor Beneficiary
Plaintiff / Appellee:
KB RA-EL EXPRESS TRUST, A Private Moor Aboriginal Virginian National Subject Ambassador At Large and Noble of the Al Moroc Shereefian Empire
Defendant / Appellee:
JOHN ANTONY BLINKEN, d/b/a Antony John Blinken, Secretary of State, JANET LOUISE YELLEN, d/b/a Janet Louise Yellen, Secretary of Treasury, et al United States Heirs and Assignees, MERRICK B. GARLAND, d/b/a Merrick Gardland, et al. Attorney General, et al, United States Heirs and Assignees and others
Debtor / Appellee:
RALPH BREEDEN, III, d/b/a Ralph Breeden III et al d/b/a GA Bar No 195892 attorney at law Hayt, Hayt & Landau, P.L. Heirs and Assignees
BROWN et al v. BLINKEN et al
as 2:2022cv04790
Plaintiff:
KENNETH ANDERSON BROWN and KB RA-EL EXPRESS TRUST
Defendant:
JOHN ANTONY BLINKEN D/B/A ANTONY JOHN BLINKEN, SECRETARY OF STATE, JANET LOUISE YELLEN d/b/a JANET LOUISE YELLEN secretary of treasury, et al. United States HEIRS AND ASSIGNEES, MERRICK GARLAND d/b/a MERRICK GARLAND, et al. attorney general, et al. United States HEIRS AND ASSIGNEES and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
LACKEY v. CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP et al
as 1:2019cv12914
Defendant:
CARNEYS POINT TOWNSHIP, JOHN & JANE DOES 1-10, CARNEYS POINT POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Plaintiff:
AVANTAI LACKEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 16-3986
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Florence-Elizabeth Mason, et al v. Philadelphia Police Department, et al
as 15-1702
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FLORENCE-ELIZABETH MASON, Individually and on behalf of her minor children, T.M. C.M. & S.M., affiant victim(s) and witnesses to criminal activities, VINCENT T. MASON, JR., Individually, affiant victim(s) and witnesses to criminal activities and CRYSTAL MASON, Individually, affiant victim(s) and witnesses to criminal activities
Defendant - Appellee:
PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, and its officers, MISTON, EDT. the 14th District Police Precint and its officer(s), in their official and private capacity, DIGUISSEE, CAPT. and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2015cv00415
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Florence-Elizabeth Mason, et al v. Philadelphia Police Department, et al
as 13-4134
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FLORENCE-ELIZABETH MASON, Individually and on behalf of her minor children, T.M., C.M. & S.M., affiant victim(s) and witnesses to criminal activities
Plaintiff - Appellee:
VINCENT T. MASON, JR., Individually, affiant victim(s) and witnesses to criminal activities and CRYSTAL MASON, Individually, affiant victim(s) and witnesses to criminal activities
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, And its officers, CHARLES RAMSEY, THE COMMINSSIONER OF POLICE, JOHN FLEMING and others
MASON et al v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2013cv05163
Plaintiff:
FLORENCE ELIZABETH MASON, VINCENT T. MASON, JR. and CRYSTAL MASON
Defendant:
THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHARLES H. RAMSEY, JOHN FLEMING and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nasheen Anderson, et al v. Robert Hoover, et al
as 13-2013
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NASHEEN ANDERSON, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN HOPE ANDERSON
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT HOOVER, BADGE #3279, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, OBIE HAZARD, BADGE #3276 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, JAMES CONELL, BADGE # 8888, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and others
Appellant:
HOPE ANDERSON
ANDERSON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2011cv06318
Plaintiff:
NASHEEN ANDERSON
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA , ROBERT HOOVER , OBIE HAZARD 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.
