Cases 61 - 70 of 96
RICHARDSON v. ESTOCK et al
as 2:2018cv01704
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, SUPT. LEE ESTOCK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
MARK RICHARDSON
Defendant:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JOHNS v. ESTOCK et al
as 5:2018cv05559
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER and LEE ESTOCK
Petitioner:
TYLER DWAYNE JOHNS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ECHAVARRIA v. ESTOCK et al
as 2:2018cv05455
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, SUPERINTENDENT LEE J. ESTOCK and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
LEANDROS ECHAVARRIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
GHOLSON v. SHEEDER et al
as 2:2018cv01451
Defendant:
YOLANDA S. WEBB, LEE J. ESTOCK, FOGLE and others
Plaintiff:
BLAINE KOBY GHOLSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
GHOLSON v. SHEEDER et al
as 2:2018cv01280
Defendant:
MR. SOKIRA, WHEARY, LEE J. ESTOCK and others
Plaintiff:
BLAINE KOBY GHOLSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pr
Gholson v. Sheeder et al
as 1:2018cv01854
Defendant:
Byers, Wheary, Sokira and others
Plaintiff:
Blaine Koby Gholson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Stoss v. Estock et al
as 1:2018cv01479
Petitioner:
Arthur F. Stoss, Sr.
Respondent:
Superintendent Estock and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ESTOCK v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
as 2:2017cv01610
Plaintiff:
MARY ESTOCK
Defendant:
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1132
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2017cv00489
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Allen JR., II v. Beard et al
as 3:2016cv02713
Plaintiff:
Columbus Allen JR., II
Defendant:
Jeffrey Beard, J. Clark Kelso, Scott Kernan 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.
