Cases 1 - 10 of 12
ELLIOTT v. GEHRET et al
as 2:2020cv06331
Defendant:
(?)(PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE), ERIC ZUCKERMAN, DAVID C. SHUTER and others
Plaintiff:
NATHANIEL LEROY ELLIOTT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PORTER v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY et al
as 2:2017cv00025
Petitioner:
SHURON PORTER
Respondent:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY, THOMAS F. MERRICK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MORRISON v. ROCHLIN et al
as 3:2016cv01417
Plaintiff:
Fabian T. Morrison
Defendant:
Karen E. Rochlin , Coleman Medium Officials , Tamyra Javis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOFFNER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2016cv03502
Plaintiff:
THOMAS F. HOFFNER, JR.
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
WALKER v. HAVERFORD TWP POLICE DEPT. et al
as 2:2015cv04850
Plaintiff:
PETER WALKER
Defendant:
HAVERFORD TWP POLICE DEPT., THOMAS F. SCARPATO, JR., JEFFREY STEIGEWALT and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOFFNER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
as 2:2015cv03924
Plaintiff:
THOMAS F. HOFFNER, JR.
Defendant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
MORRISON v. ROCHLIN et al
as 2:2015cv00133
Plaintiff:
FABIAN T. MORRISON
Defendant:
KAREN E. ROCHLIN, COLEMAN MEDIUM OFFICIALS, TAMYRA JAVIS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HOFFNER v. UNITED STATES
as 2:2012cv04714
Plaintiff:
THOMAS F. HOFFNER, JR.
Defendant:
UNITED STATES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
REDGUARD v. NUTTER et al
as 2:2012cv02026
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY REDGUARD
Defendant:
MICHAEL NUTTER, SETH WILLIAMS, CHARLES RAMSEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
REDGUARD v. NUTTER et al
as 2:2012cv01157
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY REDGUARD
Defendant:
MICHAEL NUTTER, SETH WILLIAMS, CHARLES RAMSEY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
