Cases 1 - 10 of 15
HARRIS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 1:2022cv00217
Petitioner:
TELLY HARRIS
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AUBREA HAGERTY, HOFFMAN HILLARY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
KROLL v. HIGGINS et al
as 3:2021cv00207
Plaintiff:
JOHN L. KROLL
Defendant:
WILLIAM J. HIGGINS, JR., ANTHONY ZANONI, MICHAEL O. TWIGG and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv01591
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
HAYNES v. DECANINI et al
as 2:2021cv00079
Defendant:
DPTY. WARDEN WHITE, LT. CIPOLLA, C/O HERMAN and others
Plaintiff:
PATRICK HAYNES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2018cv01075
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
CALHOUN v. INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION et al
as 2:2018cv01022
Plaintiff:
ETTA CALHOUN
Defendant:
INVENTION SUBMISSION CORPORATION , TECHNOSYSTEMS CONSOLIDATED CORP. , TECHNOSYSTES SERVICE CORP. and others
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 0297
CALHOUN v. SMITH et al
as 3:2017cv00025
Petitioner:
GARY CALHOUN
Respondent:
BARRY SMITH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CAMBRIA COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CALHOUN v. COLVIN
as 1:2016cv00242
Plaintiff:
SUZETTE EVELINE CALHOUN
Defendant:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
RODEHEAVER v. NELSON et al
as 3:2016cv00209
Plaintiff:
BRENTON CORY RODEHEAVER
Defendant:
TROY NELSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BAKER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STEVIE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
CALHOUN v. SUPERINTENDENT CAMERON et al
as 3:2015cv00191
Petitioner:
GARY CALHOUN
Respondent:
SUPERINTENDENT CAMERON and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
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.
