Cases 1 - 10 of 15
BENSON v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2018cv02762
Respondent:
LARRY MAHALLY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF _______________ and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF __________________
Petitioner:
JOHN BENSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Taylor v. Mahally et al
as 1:2018cv00910
Petitioner:
John Junior Taylor
Respondent:
Larry Mahally, PA State Attorney General and District Attorney of Dauphin County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Perez v. Mahally et al
as 1:2017cv02117
Plaintiff:
Anthony I Perez, Sr.
Defendant:
Larry Mahally, Sowga, J H Dupont and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ash v. D.O.C. et al
as 3:2017cv00957
Plaintiff:
William A Ash
Defendant:
D.O.C., John E. Wetzel, Cynthia Link and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ash v. D.O.C. et al
as 3:2017cv00959
Plaintiff:
William A Ash
Defendant:
D.O.C., John E. Wetzel, Cynthia Link and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Robinson v. Mahally et al
as 3:2017cv00823
Petitioner:
Davey Robinson
Respondent:
Larry Mahally and The Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CALDWELL v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2016cv01848
Petitioner:
KEITH CALDWELL
Respondent:
LARRY MAHALLY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Edrington v. Mahally et al
as 3:2016cv02339
Plaintiff:
Thomas Lee Edrington
Defendant:
Larry Mahally, Rebecca Mooney, C.J. McKeown and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SAUNDERS v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2016cv02690
Petitioner:
LAMONT SAUNDERS
Respondent:
LARRY MAHALLY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ramzee v. Wetzel et al
as 1:2015cv02143
Plaintiff:
Myles Ramzee
Defendant:
John Wetzel , Shawn Kephart , Ulli Klemm and others
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.
