Cases 41 - 50 of 304
Johnson v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2016cv00863
Plaintiff:
Arthur Johnson
Defendant:
John Wetzel, Shirley Moore-Smeal, Michael Wenerowicz and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SPENCE v. WENEROWICZ et al
as 2:2016cv01931
Petitioner:
SIMEONE SPENCE
Respondent:
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Doe v. Doe et al
as 3:2016cv00394
Plaintiff:
John Doe
Defendant:
Jane Doe,, Barb Doe, Bill Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOE v. DOE et al
as 2:2016cv01038
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE
Defendant:
JANE DOE, BARB DOE, BILL DOE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SWIDERSKI v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 5:2015cv06814
Plaintiff:
JASON MARTIN SWIDERSKI
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETZEL, SHIRLEY MOORE SMEAL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WASHINGTON v. WENEROWICZ et al
as 2:2015cv06181
Petitioner:
JEROME JUNIOR WASHINGTON
Respondent:
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ARCHEVAL v. WENEROWICZ
as 2:2015cv06125
Plaintiff:
JOSE M. ARCHEVAL , SR.
Defendant:
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JOHNSON v. WENEROWICZ
as 2:2015cv06029
Plaintiff:
DARREN JOHNSON
Defendant:
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MORRIS v. WENEROWICZ et al
as 2:2015cv05969
Plaintiff:
TYREE MORRIS
Defendant:
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, JOHN WETZEL, JOSEPH C. KORSZNIAK and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ADAMS v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2015cv05718
Petitioner:
CALVIN ADAMS
Respondent:
JOHN WETZEL, MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, SCI - GRATERFORD and others
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.
