Cases 1 - 9 of 9
RODRIGUEZ v. LAWLER et al
as 5:2010cv07556
Petitioner:
HECTOR RODRIGUEZ
Respondent:
R.M. LAWLER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SANTIAGO v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2010cv05658
Petitioner:
JAIME SANTIAGO
Respondent:
R.M. LAWLER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LYNNE ABRAHAM and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BAXTER v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2010cv02369
Petitioner:
ALBERT BAXTER
Respondent:
R.M. LAWLER and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BROWN v. LAWLER et al
as 1:2009cv00146
Petitioner:
GREGORY GARRETT BROWN
Respondent:
R.M. LAWLER and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNA.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BROWN v. LAWLER et al
as 1:2008cv00312
Petitioner:
GREGORY GARRETT BROWN
Respondent:
R.M. LAWLER and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
BROWN v. LAWLER et al
as 1:2008cv00319
Petitioner:
GREGORY GARRETT BROWN
Respondent:
R.M. LAWLER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Scott v. Lawler et al
as 3:2008cv01530
Petitioner:
Jamal Scott
Respondent:
R.M. Lawler and Attorney General Of The State Of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Brown v. Lawler
as 3:2008cv00681
Petitioner:
Gregory Garrett Brown
Respondent:
R.M. Lawler and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
BRAXTON v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2007cv04200
Petitioner:
CURTIS BRAXTON
Respondent:
R.M. LAWLER, 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 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.
