Cases 11 - 20 of 167
Pittman v. Corbett et al
as 3:2014cv00567
Plaintiff:
Gabriel Pittman
Defendant:
Tom Corbett, John Wetzel and Jerome Walsh
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Mayo v. Walsh et al
as 3:2014cv00417
Petitioner:
Alfred Alonzo Mayo
Respondent:
Jerome Walsh, PA State Attorney General and District Attorney of Schuylkill County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rivera v. Josephwicz et al
as 3:2014cv00319
Plaintiff:
Wilfredo Rivera
Defendant:
Bart Josephwicz, John Doe, Jerome Walsh and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McMILLIAN v. WALSH
as 2:2014cv00123
Plaintiff:
CORLIVEETHO MCMILLIAN
Defendant:
JEROME WALSH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361
REED v. WALSH et al
as 2:2014cv00112
Petitioner:
JASON REED
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH, 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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DELOATCH v. WALSH et al
as 2:2014cv00064
Petitioner:
HORACE DELOATCH
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ALLEN v. WALSH
as 2:2014cv00081
Petitioner:
JAMAL ALLEN
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CRUZ PEREZ v. WALSH et al
as 2:2014cv00009
Petitioner:
MAXIMINO CRUZ PEREZ
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ROACH v. WALSH
as 2:2013cv07673
Petitioner:
THOMAS ROACH
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BAYNES v. WALSH
as 2:2013cv07683
Petitioner:
JOSEPH BAYNES
Respondent:
JEROME WALSH
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.
