Cases 31 - 40 of 89
Edward Kates v. Christopher Christie, et al
as 15-2259
Plaintiff - Appellant:
EDWARD KATES
Defendant - Appellee:
NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, JOHN J. HOFFMAN, Acting Attorney General, JAMES T. PLOUSIS and others
Jamey Robertson v. Attorney General Pennsylvania, et al
as 14-4220
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMEY C. ROBERTSON
Defendant - Appellee:
ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and SUPERINTENDENT HUNTINGDON SCI
KATES v. CHRISTIE et al
as 2:2014cv05769
Plaintiff:
EDWARD KATES
Defendant:
NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE, JOHN J. HOFFMAN, JAMES T. PLOUSIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
USA v. Eric Robertson
as 14-3748
Plaintiff - Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellant:
ERIC ROBERTSON
Portie Robertson v. Warden Dallas SCI, et al
as 14-3174
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PORTIE A. ROBERTSON
Defendant - Appellee:
WARDEN DALLAS SCI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERTSON v. WALSH et al
as 2:2014cv03871
Petitioner:
PORTIE ROBERTSON
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ROBERTSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2014cv00778
Petitioner:
ERIC ROBERTSON
Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
WILSON v. LANIGAN et al
as 2:2014cv03746
Defendant:
GARY M. LANIGAN, JAMES T. PLOUSIS, SAMUEL J. PLUMERI, JR. and others
Plaintiff:
KENNETH WILSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Marco Robertson v. Samuels, et al
as 14-2782
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARCO MIGUEL ROBERTSON
Defendant - Appellee:
SAMUELS and COMMISSIONER MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Robertson v. Bates et al
as 1:2014cv00846
Plaintiff:
Kashif M. Robertson
Defendant:
Darrin A. Bates, Nicholas Ishman and Joshua Hammer
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.
