Cases 31 - 40 of 98
Ramos Rodriguez v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
as 1:2018cv02029
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and PA Attorney General
Petitioner:
Santos B. Ramos Rodriguez
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MONTILLA v. RAMIREZ-RAMOS
as 5:2018cv04296
Plaintiff:
JOSE DEJESUS MONTILLA
Defendant:
RODRIGO RAMIREZ-RAMOS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RAMOS v. GARMAN et al
as 2:2018cv04221
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and MARK GARMAN
Petitioner:
JAVIER RAMOS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
RICHLINE v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON
as 5:2018cv01223
Plaintiff:
CHARLENE M. RICHLINE
Defendant:
PRECILLA RAMOS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
RAMOS v. ROZUM et al
as 2:2018cv00130
Petitioner:
JESUS RAMOS
Respondent:
GERALD ROZUM, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF P.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ramos v. Lebanon County Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas et al
as 3:2017cv02247
Petitioner:
Xavier J. Ramos
Respondent:
Lebanon County Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas and The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ramos v. Garman et al
as 3:2017cv01905
Petitioner:
Edward R. Ramos
Respondent:
Mark Garman and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ramos v. Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon Pennsylvania
as 3:2017cv01426
Petitioner:
Xavier I Ramos
Respondent:
Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon Pennsylvania and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DEWALD et al v. HILLER et al
as 2:2017cv02016
Plaintiff:
DAVID E. DEWALD, II, KRIS PYLANT, DAMIEN CAMMILE and others
Defendant:
MARK HILLER, DAVID BYRNE and COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTERS INC.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROEBUCK v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 2:2017cv01930
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY ROEBUCK
Defendant:
PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT , WALTER BARTLE , NATHAN RAMOS and others
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.
