Cases 41 - 50 of 88
CASH v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2012cv00312
Plaintiff:
OMAR SHERIEFF CASH
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL, DORINA VARNER, MICHAEL HARLOWE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
MARTIN v. HARLOW et al
as 5:2012cv06407
Petitioner:
SAMUEL LEE MARTIN
Respondent:
MICHAEL HARLOW and PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Martin v. Harlow
as 1:2012cv02230
Petitioner:
Samuel Lee Martin
Respondent:
Michael Harlow and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GREELEY v. HARLOW et al
as 2:2012cv01574
Petitioner:
MARK DANIEL GREELEY
Respondent:
MICHAEL HARLOW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
REISE v. HARLOW et al
as 1:2012cv00265
Petitioner:
JASON REISE
Respondent:
MICHAEL HARLOW, VICTOR V. VIGLUICCI, LINDA KELLY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kemper v. Harlow et al
as 1:2012cv02022
Petitioner:
Douglas Kemper
Respondent:
Michael Harlow , PA Attorney General and York County District Attorney
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GREER v. HARLOW et al
as 2:2012cv01263
Petitioner:
VIRGIL LONDY GREER
Respondent:
MICHAEL HARLOW and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HAMMOND v. HARLOW
as 2:2012cv04926
Petitioner:
GREGORY HAMMOND
Respondent:
MICHAEL HARLOW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
XAVIER v. HARLOW et al
as 1:2012cv01603
Petitioner:
Gustavo Xavier
Respondent:
Michael Harlow and The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
XAVIER v. HARLOW et al
as 3:2012cv01603
Petitioner:
Gustavo Xavier
Respondent:
Michael Harlow and The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
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.
