Cases 71 - 80 of 120
FOGLE v. ZIRKLE et al
as 1:2014cv00131
Plaintiff:
LEWIS J. FOGLE
Defendant:
CHRISTINE ZIRKLE, CHCA and NANCY GIROUX
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lee v. Giroux et al
as 3:2014cv00772
Petitioner:
Marcale Anthony Lee
Respondent:
Nancy Giroux and PA State Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Glunt v. Giroux et al
as 3:2014cv00630
Petitioner:
Christopher G. Glunt
Respondent:
Nancy Giroux, Kathleen Kane, Centre County Court and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MANN v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv00394
Petitioner:
LOUIS MICHAEL MANN
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
SUTTON v. GIROUX et al
as 1:2014cv00082
Petitioner:
JOHN SUTTON
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX , ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CRAWFORD COUNTY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
MAYO v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv01144
Petitioner:
WILLIAM MAYO
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX, 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
HATCHER v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv01022
Petitioner:
HASAAN HATCHER
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WOODRING v. GIROUX et al
as 3:2014cv00113
Petitioner:
ADAM WOODRING
Respondent:
Nancy Giroux and The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
WOODRING v. GIROUX et al
as 1:2014cv00006
Petitioner:
ADAM WOODRING
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
CAMPBELL v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv00188
Petitioner:
SAMMIE CAMPBELL
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX 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.
