Cases 41 - 50 of 113
SCHAMING v. ZIETWIEL et al
as 1:2015cv00043
Plaintiff:
RUSSELL B. SCHAMING
Defendant:
ZIETWIEL and NANCY GIROUX
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
SHEGOG v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv01701
Petitioner:
JOSEPH SHEGOG
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)
HATCHER v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv07025
Petitioner:
JAMAL HATCHER
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
PETTAWAY v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2014cv00288
Plaintiff:
WAYNE PETTAWAY
Defendant:
JOHN E. WETZEL and NANCY GIROUX
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DOCKERY v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv06636
Petitioner:
RICKY DOCKERY
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and D.A. OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
JACOBS v. GIROUX et al
as 1:2014cv00276
Petitioner:
ANDRE LEE JACOBS
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL and UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
COOPER v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv05858
Petitioner:
KEVIN COOPER
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
TANNELLO v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv05542
Petitioner:
PAUL TANNELLO
Respondent:
NANCY GIROUX, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
PRICE v. WETZEL et al
as 1:2014cv00243
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM PRICE
Defendant:
JOHN WETZEL and NANCY GIROUX
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ACCOR v. GIROUX et al
as 2:2014cv05255
Petitioner:
STEVEN ACCOR
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.
