Cases 1 - 8 of 8
John Hall, II v. PA Board of Probation and Paro, et al
as 20-2708
Defendant / Appellee:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ERIE COUNTY
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN EDWARD HALL, II
HALL, II v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE et al
as 1:2018cv00061
Petitioner:
JOHN EDWARD HALL, II
Respondent:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and ERIE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HALL v. AFSCME et al
as 2:2017cv03417
Plaintiff:
GARY EDWARD HALL
Defendant:
AFSCME, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HALL et al v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. et al
as 2:2011cv60303
Plaintiff:
EDWARD HALL, SR and JACQUELYN HALL
Defendant:
ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. , KEENE CORPORATION , MINNESOTA MINING & MFG., CORP. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
HALL v. CHAMBERS et al
as 2:2010cv05204
Plaintiff:
GARY EDWARD HALL
Defendant:
STEVEN CHAMBERS, JOHN BRITTON, DAN LEE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HALL v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATION et al
as 2:2009cv04604
Petitioner:
GARY EDWARD HALL
Respondent:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATION, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HALL v. GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C. et al
as 2:2009cv65967
Plaintiff:
HARVEY EDWARD HALL
Defendant:
GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C., OWENS ILLINOIS INC, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Asbestos Litigation
HALL v. 3M et al
as 2:2008cv86443
Plaintiff:
CHARLES EDWARD HALL
Defendant:
3M, FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, FOSTER WHEELER CONSTRUCTORS, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
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.
