Cases 61 - 70 of 87
ANTONELLI et al v. GLOUCESTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2012cv04221
Plaintiff:
JAY ANTONELLI, JESSICA ANTONELLI, L.A. and others
Defendant:
GLOUCESTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, KENNETH IEPSON, JOSEPH ELLER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
ROBERTS v. WARREN et al
as 3:2012cv04010
Petitioner:
JAMES ROBERTS
Respondent:
CHARLES E. WARREN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WASHINGTON v. WARREN et al
as 3:2012cv01184
Petitioner:
KELVIN WASHINGTON, SR
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
VENZIE v. YATAURO et al
as 1:2011cv07404
Petitioner:
RANDALL K. VENZIE
Defendant:
MEG A. YATAURO and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MASSEY v. WARREN et al
as 1:2011cv07261
Petitioner:
LLOYD A. MASSEY
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DOWNER v. WARREN et al
as 1:2011cv06414
Petitioner:
STEPHON DOWNER
Respondent:
CHARLES WARREN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
KING v. BARTOWSKI
as 1:2011cv04358
Petitioner:
WARREN KING
Respondent:
GREG BARTOWSKI and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BROWN v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
as 1:2011cv03833
Petitioner:
DAVID D. BROWN
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DURGA et al v. CICERALE et al
as 3:2011cv03544
Plaintiff:
RAMANAND DURGA and DAVEANAND DURGA
Defendant:
FRANK CICERALE, P.O., FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
GIBSON v. ARTHUR et al
as 1:2011cv00959
Plaintiff:
PAUL J. GIBSON
Defendant:
WILLIAM ARTHUR, JASON STETSER, MAURICE S. GIBSON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
