Cases 21 - 30 of 146
CAMERON v. METELLUS et al
as 2:2021cv04853
Petitioner:
NATQWAN CAMERON
Respondent:
CARL METELLUS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2021cv04749
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
BACK v. THE COMMONWEALTH DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF BUCKS, PA
as 2:2021cv02803
Respondent:
THE COMMONWEALTH DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF BUCKS, PA
Petitioner:
JARED H. BACK
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
FALCEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS
as 2:2021cv00682
Petitioner:
PATRICK MICHAEL FALCEY, JR.
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv05923
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv05582
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
STOKES v. COUNTY OF BUCKS et al
as 2:2020cv05167
Defendant:
KEVIN F. MCCREARY, LAUREN M. SMITH, DAVID COYNE and others
Plaintiff:
CARL W STOKES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2020cv04016
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
JACKSON v. CLARK et al
as 2:2020cv01988
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS and SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL CLARK
Petitioner:
JERMAINE JACKSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JOHNS v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2020cv01055
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF BUCKS and MARK CAPOZZA
Petitioner:
DEREK M. JOHNS
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.
