Search Federal District Court filings
Party Name (optional):
Cases Filed In:
Lawsuit Type:
Show:
Cases Filed:
and
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Daniel v. Grondolsky

(What's this?) What is the EasyEdit button? This website gets better when people like you add to it. Just click the EasyEdit button to start. (help)
Petitioner:William T. Daniel
Respondent:Jeff Grondolsky
 
Case Number:4:2009cv40180
Filed:October 16, 2009
 
Court:Massachusetts District Court
Office:Worcester Office [ Court Info ]
County:Worcester
Presiding Judge:Judge Douglas P. Woodlock
 
Nature of Suit:P. Petitions - General
Cause:28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jurisdiction:U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:None
Search for this case: Daniel v. Grondolsky
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: William T. Daniel
Search Dockets[ Dockets ]
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance[ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Jeff Grondolsky
Search Dockets[ Dockets ]
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance[ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]


The Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets site republishes public litigation records retrieved from the US Federal District Courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Justia.