Cases 21 - 30 of 61
BUYNA v. OVERMYER et al
as 2:2015cv01283
Petitioner:
ALLAN D. BUYNA
Respondent:
MICHAEL OVERMYER, STEPHEN ZAPALLA and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WOOD v. WENEROWICZ et al
as 2:2015cv01284
Petitioner:
KEITH WOOD
Respondent:
MIKE WENEROWICZ , KNOTTS , THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KATHLEEN KANE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
FITZGERALD v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2015cv01144
Petitioner:
ALLEN ONEIL FITZGERALD
Respondent:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SHEGOG v. FBI PITTSBURGH et al
as 2:2015cv01093
Petitioner:
JOSEPH WILLIAM SHEGOG
Respondent:
FBI PITTSBURGH and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HAHN v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2015cv01077
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER A. HAHN, JR.
Respondent:
ROBERT GILMORE and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JACKSON v. WINGARD et al
as 2:2015cv00871
Petitioner:
KENNETH PHILLIP JACKSON
Respondent:
TREVOR A. WINGARD and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CARVER v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 3:2015cv00178
Petitioner:
BLAINE CARVER
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
NAILL v. OBAMA et al
as 3:2015cv00142
Plaintiff:
BILLY RAY NAILL
Defendant:
BARACK OBAMA, NATIONAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, MR. WENTZEL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GRIFFIN v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2015cv00629
Petitioner:
GREGORY GRIFFIN
Respondent:
ROBERT GILMORE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WHITENIGHT v. FOLINO et al
as 2:2015cv00620
Petitioner:
SHAWN WHITENIGHT
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO, KATHLEEN KANE and JEFFERY BURKETT
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.
