Cases 41 - 50 of 84
JONES BING v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2016cv06562
Petitioner:
SHAWN JONES BING
Respondent:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, 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
JAMES v. MAHALLY et al
as 1:2016cv00272
Petitioner:
MICHAEL RAY JAMES
Respondent:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Keeling v. Mahally
as 1:2016cv08406
Petitioner:
Michael E. Keeling
Respondent:
Lawrence Mahally
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Rivers v. Mahally et al
as 3:2016cv02092
Plaintiff:
Tyreem M. Rivers
Defendant:
Lawrence Mahally, Joseph Zakaraukas, Eric Sowga and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ANDERSON v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2016cv04425
Petitioner:
KELLY ANDERSON
Respondent:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, 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
MALLORY v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2016cv02909
Petitioner:
RICKY MALLORY
Respondent:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, 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)
METZGER v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2016cv00764
Petitioner:
DALE METZGER
Respondent:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MASSINA v. MAHALLY et al
as 5:2016cv02691
Petitioner:
KWAME MASSINA
Respondent:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LEHIGH and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DAVIS v. MAHALLY et al
as 2:2016cv01163
Petitioner:
DERRICK DAVIS
Respondent:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
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.
