Cases 31 - 40 of 59
PATE v. WALSH et al
as 2:2012mc00187
Petitioner:
KENNETH PATE
Respondent:
JEROME W. WALSH and SETH WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: Motion to Stay
Type:
Other Statutes
Bailey v. Walsh et al
as 3:2012cv01172
Petitioner:
Terrell Marcel Bailey
Respondent:
Jerome W Walsh , PA State Attorney General and Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Solomon v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al
as 1:2012cv00694
Plaintiff:
Paul Solomon
Defendant:
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Superintendent Jerom W. Walsh, Vincent Mooney and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Walker v. Walsh et al
as 3:2011cv01750
Plaintiff:
Edwin Walker
Defendant:
Jerome W. Walsh, Gary L Gordon, Michael Goyne and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Hayes v. Walsh et al
as 3:2011cv01739
Plaintiff:
Davon R Hayes
Defendant:
Jerome W Walsh, Lawrence Mahally, Norm Demming and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILLIAMS v. WALSH
as 2:2011cv05574
Petitioner:
GILBERT R. WILLIAMS
Respondent:
JEROME W. WALSH
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Crawford v. Walsh et al
as 1:2011cv01251
Plaintiff:
Lee E. Crawford
Defendant:
Jerome W. Walsh, Nancy Fedor, Pall and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DUANE-BARTHOLOMEW v. WALSH et al
as 2:2011cv04189
Petitioner:
PETERS-EL DUANE-BARTHOLOMEW
Respondent:
JEROME W. WALSH, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LUZERNE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cannon v. Kopotoski et al
as 3:2011cv01046
Plaintiff:
Jimmy Cannon
Defendant:
Michael D. Kopotoski, Jerome W. Walsh, David Mosier and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Rockwell Energy of Texas, LLC et al
as 2:2011mc00211
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Rockwell Energy of Texas, LLC, Rockwell Energy Management, LLC, Gregory S. Shindler and others
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.
