Cases 11 - 20 of 21
ROYSTER v. TENNIS et al
as 2:2009cv00464
Petitioner:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Respondent:
FRANKLIN J. TENNIS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF __________
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Michael Royster v. City of Philadelphia, et al
as 09-1147
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Defendant - Appellee:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, FORCETTIE, A.D. A., ROBERT MILLS and others
Michael Royster v. Franklin Tennis, et al
as 09-1148
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
:
JEFFREY BEARD and FRANKLIN TENNIS
ROYSTER v. TENNIS et al
as 2:2008cv05732
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Defendant:
FRANKLIN J. TENNIS and JEFFREY A. BEARD
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ROYSTER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al
as 2:2008cv05661
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Defendant:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, A.D.A. FORCETTIE, ROBERT MILLS and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROYSTER
as 2:2008cv05940
Petitioner:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Respondent:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Michael Royster v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
as 08-35635
Petitioner - Appellant:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
Respondent - Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Royster v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta et al
as 1:2008cv01781
Petitioner:
Michael Royster
Respondent:
Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta and Lexington Kentucky, Board of Parole and Probation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
ROYSTER v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
as 3:2008cv05321
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
Michael Royster
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROYSTER
as 2:2007cv01852
Petitioner:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Respondent:
MICHAEL ROYSTER
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.
