Cases 1 - 10 of 25
JACKSON v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2014cv00401
Petitioner:
DEWAYNE JACKSON
Respondent:
RAYMOND M. LAWLER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
QUEVI v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2011cv00962
Petitioner:
KEVIN RICHARD QUEVI
Respondent:
RAYMOND LAWLER, D.O.C. SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI-HUNTINGDON and PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PENNINGTON v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2011cv00905
Petitioner:
GARY LYNELL PENNINGTON
Respondent:
RAYMOND M. LAWLER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
LOWERY v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2011cv00190
Petitioner:
ALBERT LOWERY
Respondent:
LAWLER , S. A. ZAPPALA, JR. and TOM CORBITT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BROADUS v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2011cv00105
Petitioner:
CORDELL DUANE BROADUS
Respondent:
RAYMOND M. LAWLER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ARTEAGA v. BEARD et al
as 2:2010cv01528
Petitioner:
GILBERT ARTEAGA
Respondent:
JEFFREY A. BEARD, SHIRLEY MOORE, P. LECHNER and others
Defendant:
LAWLER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BURKETT v. LAWLER et al
as 3:2010cv00270
Petitioner:
WAYNE PAUL BURKETT
Respondent:
RAYMOND M. LAWLER and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THOMAS CORBETT
Defendant:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BLAIR
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CHUMLEY v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2010cv01134
Petitioner:
RANDALL HOYT CHUMLEY
Respondent:
RAYMOND LAWLER and PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
ROGERS v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2010cv00497
Petitioner:
NORRIS ROGERS
Respondent:
RAYMOND M. LAWLER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CARDER v. LAWLER et al
as 1:2009cv00313
Petitioner:
MARUCS CARDER
Respondent:
LAWLER and ERIC HOLDING
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
