Cases 41 - 50 of 173
SCHAFFER v. FERGUSON et al
as 2:2016cv00018
Petitioner:
PAUL L. SCHAFFER
Respondent:
TAMMY FERGUSON and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PAOLINO v. CAMERON et al
as 2:2015cv06748
Petitioner:
RICHARD GERALD PAOLINO
Respondent:
KENNETH CAMERON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, HONORABLE KATHLEEN KANE, ESQ.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Washam v. MaHallay et al
as 1:2015cv02397
Plaintiff:
Thomas S Washam
Defendant:
Lawrence MaHallay, Kathleen Kane and Office of Judicial Support of Delaware County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Reginald Scott v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI, et al
as 15-3926
Plaintiff - Appellant:
REGINALD C. SCOTT
Defendant - Appellee:
KATHLEEN KANE and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
SUTTON v. OVERMAYER et al
as 2:2015cv06499
Petitioner:
DEREK SUTTON
Respondent:
MICHAEL D. OVERMAYER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIA and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SCHLEMMER v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al
as 2:2015cv01583
Petitioner:
LAUREL MICHELE SCHLEMMER
Respondent:
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ORLANDO HARPER, KATHLEEN KANE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Scott v. Kane et al
as 3:2015cv02175
Petitioner:
Reginald C. Scott
Respondent:
Kathleen Kane and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SMITH v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2015cv01449
Petitioner:
LAVON CECIL SMITH
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BRIGHTWELL v COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (ET.AL.)
as 1:2015cv00263
Petitioner:
BOBBY BRIGHTWELL
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLANIA, (ET.AL.), PENNSYLVANIA PROBATION AND PAROLE, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PARKER v. TRITT et al
as 2:2015cv05487
Petitioner:
JASON PARKER
Respondent:
BRENDA TRITT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KATHLEEN KANE
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.
