Cases 21 - 30 of 202
GOODMAN v. FOLINO et al
as 5:2014cv00841
Petitioner:
FRED GOODMAN
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CLARY v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2014cv00156
Petitioner:
TERREL L. CLARY
Respondent:
JOHN WETZEL and LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HARVEY v. FOLINO et al
as 2:2014cv00139
Petitioner:
DERRICK HARVEY
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILA. and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JORDAN v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2014cv00103
Petitioner:
LEWIS M. JORDAN
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, LOUIS FOLINO, MARIROSA LAMOS and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WALTON v. FOLINO et al
as 5:2013cv07689
Petitioner:
RODNEY LEE WALTON
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
NOBLE v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2013cv00366
Petitioner:
RICARDO NOBLE
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and LOUIS FOLINO
Defendant:
JACK DANERI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
FLEWELLEN v. FOLINO et al
as 2:2013cv07399
Petitioner:
DARIUS FLEWELLEN
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO, SETH WILLIAMS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
KRONK v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv01769
Petitioner:
TERRENCE KRONK
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
REGA v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv01781
Petitioner:
ROBERT GENE REGA
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL, LOUIS FOLINO and MARIROSA LAMAS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WILLIAMS v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv01767
Petitioner:
RAYMOND WILLIAMS
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
