Cases 1 - 10 of 41
WATSON v. SOBINA et al
as 2:2013cv07422
Petitioner:
DWIGHT WATSON
Respondent:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, LYNN ABRAHAM and MIKE FISHER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jermaine Scott v. Raymond Sobina, et al
as 12-1036
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JERMAINE ALONZO SCOTT
Defendant - Appellee:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, DA PHILADELPHIA and ATTY GEN PA
Michael Pendleton v. Raymond Sobina, et al
as 11-4000
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL J. PENDLETON
Defendant - Appellee:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, DA ALLEGHENY COUNTY and ATTY GEN PA
Nigel Parms v. Raymond Sobina, et al
as 10-4786
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NIGEL D. PARMS
Defendant - Appellee:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, ATTY GEN PA and DA ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Mitchell v. Sobina et al
as 3:2010cv02267
Petitioner:
Christopher Columbus Mitchell
Respondent:
Raymond J. Sobina and Thomas Corbett
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Mitchell v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania et al
as 3:2010cv02218
Petitioner:
Christopher Columbus Mitchell
Respondent:
Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, Raymond J Sobina and Attorney General's Office
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ROBINSON v. SOBINA et al
as 4:2010cv01985
Respondent:
Raymond J. Sobina and The attorney general of the state of pa
Petitioner:
Mark Maurice Robinson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ROBINSON v. SOBINA et al
as 1:2010cv00209
Respondent:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PA
Petitioner:
MARK MAURICE ROBINSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Harold Darden v. Raymond Sobina, et al
as 10-3390
Plaintiff - Appellant:
HAROLD DARDEN
Defendant - Appellee:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, DA PHILADELPHIA and ATTY GEN PA
PARMS v. SOBINA et al
as 2:2010cv00987
Petitioner:
NIGEL DWAYNE PARMS
Respondent:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY
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.
