Cases 1 - 10 of 41
FLOR v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2022cv02765
Petitioner:
ROBERT ANTHONY FLOR
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, JEFFREY A. MARTIN and MARIROSA LAMAS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
THOMAS v. WETZEL et al
as 5:2020cv01371
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
LEETON JAHWANZA THOMAS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 dp
LE v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2019cv05869
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, ROBERT GILMORE, JOHN E. WETZEL and others
Petitioner:
TAM M. LE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 dp
JOHNSON v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2018cv01553
Petitioner:
MARCEL JOHNSON
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT GILMORE, MARK GARMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
YANDAMURI v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2017cv03798
Petitioner:
RAGHUNANDAN YANDAMURI
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SMITH v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2016cv05791
Petitioner:
WAYNE SMITH
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT GILMORE and MARK GARMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CASH v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2016cv04320
Petitioner:
OMAR SHARIFF CASH
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT GILMORE and MARK GARMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BURNO v. WETZEL et al
as 5:2015cv06307
Petitioner:
JUNIUS BURNO
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT GILMORE and MARIROSA LAMAS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TOWLES v. WETZEL et al
as 5:2015cv04256
Petitioner:
JAKEEM TOWLES
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT GILMORE and STEVEN GLUNT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PELZER v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2015cv01932
Petitioner:
KEVIN PELZER
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, ROBERT D. GILMORE, STEVEN GLUNT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
