Cases 1 - 7 of 7
BARCLAY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2011cv00478
Petitioner:
LLOYD VIRGIL BARCLAY
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LEHIGH , THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF THOMAS CORBETT and SUPERINTENDENT LOUIS FOLINO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
RIVERS et al v. LAWLER et al
as 2:2010cv04211
Petitioner:
FREDERICK RIVERS
Respondent:
ROBERT LAWLER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF SETH R. WILLIAMS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF THOMAS CORBETT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
FORD v. KLOPOTOSKI et al
as 2:2009cv05667
Petitioner:
THADDEUS FORD
Respondent:
MICHAEL KLOPOTOSKI and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF THOMAS CORBETT
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
STAFFORD v. ROZUM et al
as 2:2009cv02106
Petitioner:
REGINALD MARCUS STAFFORD
Respondent:
GERALD L. ROZUM, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF JERRY L. SPANGLER, SOMERSET COUNTY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FLOYD v. FOLINO et al
as 2:2008cv05618
Petitioner:
JEFFREY FLOYD
Respondent:
LOUIS FOLINO, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LYNNE ABRAHAM and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF THOMAS CORBETT
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
WHITFIELD v. WILSON et al
as 2:2008cv01163
Petitioner:
CHARLES RUSSELL WHITFIELD, JR.
Respondent:
HARRY WILSON, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MICHELLE HENRY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF THOMAS CORBETT
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
CAMPFIELD v. KLEM et al
as 2:2007cv02616
Petitioner:
LAMONT CAMPFIELD
Defendant:
EDWARD KLEM
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILA. LYNNE ABRAHAM and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF THOMAS CORBETT
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.
