Cases 71 - 80 of 152
GURDINE v. LANE et al
as 2:2016cv05458
Petitioner:
LAMAR GURDINE
Respondent:
JAY LANE, 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
FELLS v. LANE et al
as 2:2016cv01541
Petitioner:
WELDON WALTER FELLS
Respondent:
JAY LANE , BRUCE BEEMER and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DORSEY v. LANE et al
as 2:2016cv01485
Petitioner:
JAMES EARL DORSEY
Respondent:
JAY LANE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Byers v. Lane
as 3:2016cv01972
Petitioner:
Eric Byers
Respondent:
Lane
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
BRIGHTWELL v. LANE et al
as 2:2016cv05103
Petitioner:
ANTHONY JAMES BRIGHTWELL, JR.
Respondent:
JAY LANE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rosario-Torres v. Lane et al
as 3:2016cv01891
Petitioner:
Jesus Rosario-Torres
Respondent:
Jay Lane, PA State Attorney General and Sarah Ann Wilson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TORRES v. BUZAS et al
as 2:2016cv01394
Plaintiff:
HECTOR VARGAS TORRES
Defendant:
STEPHEN BUZAS, GARY DOBISH, PUTMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
LYLES v. LANE et al
as 2:2016cv04801
Petitioner:
BROCK P. LYLES
Respondent:
JAY LANE, 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
COHEN v. LANE et al
as 2:2016cv01295
Petitioner:
ANDRE COHEN
Respondent:
JAY LANE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
INGRAM v. MILLER et al
as 2:2016cv01191
Plaintiff:
STEVEN INGRAM
Defendant:
MILLER and J. LANE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
