Cases 1 - 10 of 11
WILLIAMS v. IRWIN et al
as 2:2022cv04140
Petitioner:
JAMES WILLIAMS
Respondent:
R. IRWIN, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WILLIAMS v. DAVIS et al
as 3:2019cv17395
Petitioner:
JAMES WILLIAMS
Defendant:
BRUCE DAVIS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WILLIAMS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
as 3:2019cv09318
Petitioner:
JAMES WILLIAMS
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BRUCE DAVIS and GURBIR GREWAL
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WILLIAMS v. OVERMYER et al
as 2:2015cv06188
Petitioner:
JAMES WILLIAMS
Respondent:
MICHAEL D. OVERMYER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
IN RE: WILLIAMS
as 5:2013cv01743
Petitioner:
JAMES WILLIAMS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
James McBride v. SCI Houtzdale
as 11-2480
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES WILLIAM MCBRIDE
Defendant - Appellee:
SCI HOUTZDALE, DA NORTHAMPTON and ATTY GEN PA
James Davies v. Franklin Tennis, et al
as 10-3176
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES WILLIAM DAVIES
Defendant - Appellee:
FRANKLIN J. TENNIS, SUPERINTENDENT, DA LANCASTER and ATTY GEN PA
DAVIES v. TENNIS et al
as 5:2009cv03461
Petitioner:
JAMES WILLIAM DAVIES
Respondent:
FRANKLIN J. TENNIS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SCHNEIDER v. SOBINA et al
as 1:2009cv00030
Petitioner:
JAMES WILLIAM SCHNEIDER
Respondent:
RAYMOND J. SOBINA, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF MCKEAN COUNTY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
