Cases 71 - 80 of 196
HARRELL v. ROZUM et al
as 3:2012cv00091
Petitioner:
ANTHONY B. HARRELL
Respondent:
GERALD ROZUM, CAPT. SIMESKO, SYLVIA GIBSON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
John Humenik v. Gerald Rozum, et al
as 12-2140
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN EDWARD HUMENIK
Defendant - Appellee:
GERALD ROZUM, Superintendent, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY
LOPEZ v. ROZUM et al
as 2:2012cv02270
Petitioner:
DAVID LOPEZ
Respondent:
GERALD ROZUM, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SMITH v. ROZUM et al
as 2:2012cv00537
Petitioner:
ANTHONY SMITH
Respondent:
GERALD ROZUM and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Louis Paolicelli v. Gerald Rozum, et al
as 12-2060
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LOUIS PAOLICELLI
Defendant - Appellee:
GERALD ROZUM, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Franklin Fickle v. Gerald Rozum, et al
as 12-1780
Plaintiff - Appellant:
FRANKLIN D. FICKLE
Defendant - Appellee:
GERALD ROZUM, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MERCER COUNTY and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Mullins v. Rozum, et al
as 12-1282
Plaintiff - Appellant:
THOMAS MULLINS
Defendant - Appellee:
GERALD ROZUM and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
Benjamin Johnson v. Gerald Rozum, et al
as 12-1249
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BENJAMIN CLAYTON JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee:
GERALD ROZUM, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY
OLIVER v. ROZUM et al
as 2:2012cv00318
Petitioner:
JAMES OLIVER
Respondent:
GERALD ROZUM, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY - PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Brown v. Rozum et al
as 3:2011cv02346
Petitioner:
Lamar Brown
Respondent:
Gerald Rozum and PA State Attorney General
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.
