Cases 41 - 50 of 324
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
ROBINSON v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv07306
Petitioner:
MARK ANTHONY ROBINSON
Respondent:
JOHN WETZEL and LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CHAPPELL v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv07151
Petitioner:
DERRICK CHAPPELL
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
BURNS v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv07191
Petitioner:
THEODORE BURNS
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ORTIZ v. FOLINO
as 5:2013cv07016
Petitioner:
MANUEL ORTIZ
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HASKINS v. FOLINO et al
as 2:2013cv06901
Petitioner:
ESHEEM T. HASKINS
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO, 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)
HERNANDEZ v. FOLINO et al
as 5:2013cv06670
Petitioner:
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HERNANDEZ v. FOLINO et al
as 2:2013cv01460
Petitioner:
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
