Cases 11 - 20 of 31
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv02136
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 621
BLAKLEY v. DILLMAN et al
as 2:2011cv07671
Petitioner:
KENNETH BLAKLEY
Respondent:
JEFFREY DILLMAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Coulter v. East Stroudsburg University et al
as 3:2011cv02065
Plaintiff:
Julie Coulter
Defendant:
East Stroudsburg University and Robert J. Dillman
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
LOCKE v. DILLMAN et al
as 2:2011cv05833
Petitioner:
RONALD LOCKE
Respondent:
JEFFREY N. DILLMAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Shannon v. Dillman et al
as 1:2011cv01015
Petitioner:
Emanon Shannon
Respondent:
Jeffrey N Dillman and PA Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MCNEIL v. DILLMAN et al
as 5:2011cv03092
Petitioner:
SAMUEL MCNEIL
Respondent:
JEFFREY N. DILLMAN and PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Movant:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
McNeil v. Dillman et al
as 1:2011cv00453
Petitioner:
Samuel L McNeil
Respondent:
Jeffrey N Dillman and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JOHNSON v. DILLMAN et al
as 2:2011cv00293
Petitioner:
RAMON JOHNSON
Respondent:
JEFFERY DILLMAN , THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BERRY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2011cv00291
Petitioner:
HAYWARD BERRY
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA , THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and JEFFREY DILLMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
LEAKE v. DILLMAN
as 2:2010cv07406
Petitioner:
RICKY LEAKE
Respondent:
JEFFREY N. DILLMAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
