Cases 1 - 8 of 8
THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY v. COUNTY OF DELAWARE, PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2018cv04517
Defendant:
MICHAEL CULP, BRAIN P. ZIDEK, JOHN DOES and others
Plaintiff:
THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VALENTI v. WINGARD et al
as 2:2017cv00480
Petitioner:
ISAIAH S. VALENTI
Respondent:
TREVOR WINGARD, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
COLON v. WINGARD et al
as 2:2015cv03118
Petitioner:
FRANK COLON
Respondent:
TREVOR WINGARD, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ASHFORD v. WENEROWICZ
as 5:2011cv04634
Petitioner:
KENNETH ASHFORD
Respondent:
MIKE WENEROWICZ, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ASHFORD v. WENEROWICZ et al
as 2:2011cv01698
Petitioner:
KENNETH WINSTON ASHFORD
Respondent:
MIKE WENEROWICZ, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HALL v. WALSH et al
as 2:2010cv06528
Petitioner:
SHAWN RICARDO HALL
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DETTER v. BRITTON et al
as 2:2009cv00676
Petitioner:
SHAWN DETTER
Respondent:
RANDALL BRITTON, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TOM CORBETT
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
DEPENA-RONDON v. THOMAS et al
as 2:2007cv03370
Petitioner:
PASCUAL J. DEPENA-RONDON
Respondent:
JOHN THOMAS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
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.
