Cases 81 - 90 of 202
HAHN v. GILMORE et al
as 2:2015cv01077
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER A. HAHN, JR.
Respondent:
ROBERT GILMORE and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GALLAWSHEW v. KAUFMANN et al
as 2:2015cv04524
Petitioner:
JERMAR GALLAWSHEW
Respondent:
KEVIN KAUFMANN, SUSAN AFFONTI and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WOOD v. WENEROWICZ et al
as 2:2015cv04404
Petitioner:
KEITH WOOD
Respondent:
MIKE WENEROWICZ , KNOTTS , THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KATHLEEN KANE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JOHNSON v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2015cv04242
Petitioner:
MICHAEL LEVANT JOHNSON
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BROWN v. LOWES et al
as 2:2015cv04215
Petitioner:
PAUL BROWN
Respondent:
CRAIG A. LOWES and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF: KATHLEEN KANE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
JACKSON v. WINGARD et al
as 2:2015cv00871
Petitioner:
KENNETH PHILLIP JACKSON
Respondent:
TREVOR A. WINGARD and KATHLEEN KANE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CARVER v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 3:2015cv00178
Petitioner:
BLAINE CARVER
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
THE NORTH WEST AMEXEM, FEZ PROVINCE et al v. WOLF et al
as 2:2015cv03606
Plaintiff:
DELILAH PASSE EL, R.LYNN HATSHEPSUT MA'ATKARE EL, NANYA AMIR EL and others
Defendant:
TOM WOLF , KATHLEEN KANE , MICHAEL NUTTER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Midgley v. Kane
as 3:2015cv01223
Petitioner:
Michael T Midgley
Respondent:
Kathleen Kane
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
ALLAH v. WILLIAMS et al
as 2:2015cv03516
Plaintiff:
ABDULLAH RASUL-SHABAZZ ALLAH
Defendant:
R. SETH WILLIAMS, KATHLEEN KANE and BRIAN COLEMAN
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.
