Cases 31 - 40 of 58
NICHOLSON v. PALAKOVICH et al
as 2:2009cv00490
Petitioner:
JAMES SCOTT NICHOLSON
Respondent:
JOHN PALAKOVICH, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF FAYETTE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MCCLAIN v. ARIAS et al
as 2:2009cv00925
Plaintiff:
RALPH WILLIAM MCCLAIN, JR.
Defendant:
FELIPE ARIAS, JULIE KNAUER, SHARON BURKS and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
MCCLAIN v. BANTA et al
as 2:2009cv00923
Plaintiff:
RALPH WILLIAM MCCLAIN, JR.
Defendant:
WILLIAM BANTA, SHEILA MCDERMOTT-LORD, JOHN PALAKOVICH and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Riley v. Beard et al
as 3:2009cv00230
Plaintiff:
Nathan Riley
Defendant:
Jeffrey A. Beard, -, John Palakovich, Harker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Harper v. Hannah, et al
as 09-1125
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WESLEY HARPER
Defendant - Appellee:
SUE HANNAH, RICHARD NORRIS, MYERS and others
Richard Jackson v. John Palakovich, et al
as 09-1044
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD JACKSON
Defendant - Appellee:
JOHN PALAKOVICH, DA PHILADELPHIA and ATTY GEN PA
In re: Frederick Sisnero
as 08-4027
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: FREDERICK C. SISNEROS
Defendant:
JOHN PALAKOVICH and ATTY GEN PA
Debtor:
DA LANCASTER
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
LAWRENCE F STENGEL and MICHAEL M BAYLSON
Baney v. Palakovich
as 4:2008cv01722
Petitioner:
Jeremy Michael Baney and Jeremy Michael Baney
Respondent:
John Palakovich and Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Reuben Brown v. John Palakovich
as 08-3597
Plaintiff - Appellant:
REUBEN BROWN
Defendant - Appellee:
ATTY GEN PA, DA PHILADELPHIA and JOHN PALAKOVICH
Robert Lincoln v. John Palakovich, et al
as 08-3165
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT LINCOLN
Defendant - Appellee:
ATTY GEN PA, DA PHILADELPHIA and JOHN PALAKOVICH
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.
