Cases 21 - 30 of 145
In re: Wayne Pettaway, et al
as 14-1478
Petitioner:
In re: WAYNE PETTAWAY
Respondent:
MAXINE OVERTON, ROBERT L. MAXA, PSYCHIATRIST ROMAN MALINA and others
Nominal Respondent:
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
FOUST v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2014cv00004
Petitioner:
MICHAEL PAUL FOUST
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and MICHAEL HARLOW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BRINKLEY v. HARLOW et al
as 2:2014cv00055
Petitioner:
KEVIN BRINKLEY
Respondent:
MICHAEL HARLOW, 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)
HARRISON v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv01777
Petitioner:
MICHAEL HARRISON
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and MICHAEL HARLOW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SAUNDERS v. HARLOW
as 2:2013cv07018
Petitioner:
RONALD SAUNDERS
Respondent:
MICHAEL HARLOW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
GARY v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2013cv01708
Petitioner:
RAFAEL A. GARY
Respondent:
JOHN E. WETZEL and MICHAEL HARLOW
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Maurice Davis v. Michael Harlow, et al
as 13-3989
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MAURICE DAVIS
Defendant - Appellee:
MICHAEL HARLOW and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA
SPUCK v. THOMPSON et al
as 3:2013cv00226
Petitioner:
DANIEL L. SPUCK
Respondent:
BRIAN THOMPSON , MICHAEL HARLOW , JOHN WETZEL and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
In re: Jay Yunik
as 13-3741
Plaintiff - Petitioner:
In re: JAY V. YUNIK
Defendant - Respondent:
CATHERINE C. MCVEY, MATTHEW T. MANGINO, Member- Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and others
Not Party - Nominal Respondent:
DONETTA W. AMBROSE
QUINONES v. HARLOW et al
as 5:2013cv05071
Petitioner:
JOSE ANTONIO RIVERA QUINONES
Respondent:
MICHAEL HARLOW and PA ATTORNEY GENERAL
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.
