BENNETT v. WENEROWICZ et al

Respondent: MICHAEL WENEROWICZ and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner: TONY L. BENNETT
Case Number: 2:2013cv01203
Filed: March 6, 2013
Court: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
Office: Philadelphia Office
County: Montgomery
Presiding Judge: JAMES KNOLL GARDNER
Referring Judge: ELIZABETH T. HEY
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus: (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BENNETT v. WENEROWICZ et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: MICHAEL WENEROWICZ
Represented By: ANNE PALMER
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 | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Represented By: ANNE PALMER
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 | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: TONY L. BENNETT
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 | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.