Cases 31 - 40 of 54
LEE v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2015cv00212
Petitioner:
KENNETH LEE
Respondent:
ROBERT GILMORE , THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
GUNTER v. KANE et al
as 2:2015cv00021
Petitioner:
CLARENCE GUNTER
Respondent:
KATHLEEN G. KANE, TAMMY FURGERSON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
COTO v. WENEROWICZ et al
as 2:2014cv01687
Petitioner:
RAMONE S. COTO
Respondent:
MIKE WENEROWICZ and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GONZALEZ v. BUSH et. al.
as 2:2014cv06635
Petitioner:
JULIO GONZALEZ
Respondent:
ERIC BUSH and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HIGHMARK INC. et al v. CONSEDINE et al
as 2:2014cv01388
Plaintiff:
HIGHMARK INC. and KEYSTONE HEALTH PLAN WEST, INC.
Defendant:
MICHAEL F. CONSEDINE , KATHLEEN G. KANE and MICHAEL E. WOLF
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
SHIPLEY v. CAPOZZA et al
as 3:2014cv00202
Petitioner:
JOHN R. SHIPLEY
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA , KELLY CALLIHAN and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
THOMASON v. PITKINS et al
as 2:2014cv04039
Petitioner:
ANTHONY THOMASON
Respondent:
DAVID PITKINS, R. SETH WILLIAMS and KATHLEEN G. KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JONES v. KANE et al
as 2:2014cv04003
Plaintiff:
MAURICE JONES
Defendant:
KATHLEEN G. KANE, JOHN E. WETZEL and MICHAEL C. POTTEIGER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Mills v. Giroux et al
as 3:2014cv00972
Petitioner:
William P Mills
Respondent:
Nancy Giroux, Kathleen G. Kane, Tom Corbett and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SHIPLEY v. CAPOZZA et al
as 2:2014cv00594
Petitioner:
JOHN R. SHIPLEY
Respondent:
MARK CAPOZZA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE and MICHAEL POTTEIGER
Defendant:
KATHLEEN G. KANE
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.
