Cases 41 - 50 of 93
CLAPPER v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2013cv01629
Petitioner:
MATTHEW P. CLAPPER
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON and PA. BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
RICHARDSON v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2013cv01466
Petitioner:
DAVID D. RICHARDSON
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON, JOHN E. WETZEL and LINDA KELLY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
JOHNSON v. THOMPSON
as 1:2013cv00299
Petitioner:
WILLIE D. JOHNSON, III
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SPUCK v. THOMPSON et al
as 3:2013cv00226
Petitioner:
DANIEL L. SPUCK
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON , MICHAEL HARLOW , JOHN WETZEL and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
NERO v. THOMPSON et al
as 1:2013cv00284
Petitioner:
RORY DAVID NERO
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HAWKINS v. THOMPSON et al
as 2:2013cv01189
Petitioner:
LARRY WAYNE HAWKINS
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BELLON v. THOMPSON
as 3:2013cv00155
Petitioner:
CHARLES BELLON
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Dayton LeBar v. Brian Thompson, et al
as 13-2731
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAYTON LEBAR
Defendant - Appellee:
BRIAN THOMPSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONROE COUNTY
David Richardson v. Brian Thompson, et al
as 13-2703
Plaintiff - Appellant:
DAVID D. RICHARDSON
Defendant - Appellee:
BRIAN THOMPSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHESTER COUNTY and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Hurley v Thompson
as 3:2013cv01502
Petitioner:
Lane C Hurley
Respondent:
Brian Thompson and PA State Attorney General
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.
