Cases 41 - 50 of 65
In re: Clinton Barlow
as 13-1320
Petitioner:
In re: CLINTON C. BARLOW
Nominal Respondent:
JEROME B. SIMANDLE and FREDA L. WOLFSON
In re: Clinton Barlow & Elmalean Bows, et al
as 13-1063
Petitioner - Petitioner:
In re: CLINTON C. BARLOW and ELMALEAN BOWSER, a/k/a Elmalean Austin
Trustee - Respondent:
ALBERT RUSSO
Nominal Respondent:
MICHAEL B. KAPLAN
BARLOW v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 3:2011mc00198
Petitioner:
CLINTON C. BARLOW, III
Respondent:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, COUNTY OF MERCER and TRENTON MUNICIPAL COURT
BARLOW v. EWING TWP. et al
as 3:2011mc00089
Plaintiff:
CLINTON C. BARLOW, III
Defendant:
EWING TWP., NANCY B. DESANTIS, CHARLES ALLEN, JR., ESQ. and others
BARLOW v. CITY OF TRENTON
as 3:2011mc00021
Plaintiff:
CLINTON C. BARLOW, III
Defendant:
CITY OF TRENTON
BARLOW et al v. USA
as 1:2010cv00070
Plaintiff:
CLINTON C. BARLOW, KAREN E. BARLOW, RASHEE BARLOW and others
Defendant:
USA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1491
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2009cv06245
Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1334 Bankruptcy Appeal
BARLOW et al v. MILGRAM et al
as 3:2009cv03326
Petitioner:
CLINTON C. BARLOW and KAREN E. BARLOW
Respondent:
ANNE MILGRAM, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, COUNTY OF MERCER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
In re: Clinton C. Barlow
as 09-2673
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: CLINTON C. BARLOW
Defendant - Respondent:
STATE OF NJ, NJ DEPT HUMAN SER, DEBORAH GOMEZ and others
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
GARRETT E BROWN, JR.
BARLOW et al v. MILGRAM et al
as 2:2009cv02541
Petitioner:
CLINTON C. BARLOW and KAREN E. BARLOW
Respondent:
ANNE MILGRAM, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, COUNTY OF MERCER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
