Cases 11 - 17 of 17
MERRITT v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 5:2014cv03209
Petitioner:
ROBERT MERRITT
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
RATUSHNY v. BICKELL et al
as 5:2014cv01324
Petitioner:
RICHARD ALLEN RATUSHNY
Respondent:
TABB BICKELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SCOTT v. THOMPSON et al
as 5:2012cv07189
Petitioner:
ROBERT J. SCOTT
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
KLUEBER v. VARANO et al
as 5:2010cv05165
Respondent:
DAVID A. VARANO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
JAMES KLUEBER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BAILEY v. TENNIS et al
as 2:2008cv04860
Petitioner:
MICHAEL BAILEY
Respondent:
F. TENNIS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF JAY WILLIAMS JENKINS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF HON. TOM CORBETT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
LEE v. PATRICK et al
as 2:2007cv00364
Petitioner:
TERRENCE LAMONT LEE
Respondent:
GORGE PATRICK, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CLARFIELD, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MATHIS, et al v. RYAN, et al
as 2:1990cv03467
Petitioner:
THOMAS BRADY MATHIS
Respondent:
JOSEPH M. RYAN , ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
