Cases 21 - 27 of 27
Michael Piskanin, Jr. v. Kelly Banach, et al
as 11-4046
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
KELLY L. BANACH, Individually and As a Judge of Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh Co., COMMONWEALTH OF PA, And It's Unified Judicial System and Judges and Legislature and ATTY GEN USA
Joseph Kohler v. Commonwealth of PA, et al
as 11-1420
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOSEPH CLARK KOHLER
Defendant - Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF PA, YORK HOSPITAL, WELLSPAN, WELLSPAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH and others
Michael Piskanin, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 10-4283
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, and its Unified Judicial System, LEGISLATURE PA, Also known as General Assembly of Pennsylvania and ATTY GEN PA
KOHLER v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2010cv04748
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH CLARK KOHLER
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, YORK HOSPITAL, WELLSPAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PLUNKETT v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY FAMILY COURT et al
as 2:2009cv01176
Plaintiff:
JOHN PLUNKETT
Defendant:
ALLEGHENY COUNTY FAMILY COURT, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, UNNAMED PARTIES WITHIN ALLEGHENY COUNTY OR FAMILY COURT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Pracht v. The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania's Department Of Corrections et al
as 3:2008cv00145
Petitioner:
Nicholas A. Pracht
Respondent:
The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania's Department Of Corrections and United Judicial System of PA
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
PRACHT v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA'S DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 2:2007cv01180
Petitioner:
NICHOLAS ALBERT PRACHT
Respondent:
THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA'S DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and UNITED JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF PA
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.
