Cases 61 - 70 of 232
PERSON v. FERGUSON et al
as 2:2020cv00206
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and TAMMY FERGUSON
Petitioner:
DARIAN PERSON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
OGELSBY v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
as 2:2019cv05598
Petitioner:
LAMAR OGELSBY
Respondent:
TAMMY FERGUSON, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
BAYNARD v. WETZEL et al
as 2:2019cv05459
Defendant:
JERRY ANKROM, GENA CLARK, MICHAEL BURTON and others
Plaintiff:
HENRY BAYNARD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
YENGLEE v. LINK et al
as 2:2019cv05352
Respondent:
TAMMY FERGUSON, JOSEPH C. KORSZNIAK, CYNTHIA LINK and others
Petitioner:
KERPER YENGLEE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MEDINA v. FERGUSON et al
as 2:2019cv04980
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, TAMMY FERGUSON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Petitioner:
ANTHONY MEDINA, JR.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
DADE v. FERGUSON
as 2:2019cv04718
Plaintiff:
LAMONT DADE
Defendant:
SUPERINT. TAMMY FERGUSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROBINSON v. FERGUSON et al
as 2:2019cv04667
Defendant:
OFFICER ROGERS., SGT. CURRAN and TAMMY FERGUSON
Plaintiff:
ROBBIE ROBINSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
THOMPSON v. FERGUSON et al
as 2:2019cv04580
Defendant:
MANDY SIPPLE, JOHN WETZEL, TAMMY FERGUSON and others
Plaintiff:
PHILLIP A. THOMPSON, III
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
HINES v. FERGUSON et al
as 2:2019cv04521
Respondent:
JOHN WETZEL, SMART COMMUNICATIONS, TAMMY FERGUSON and others
Petitioner:
ROBERT L. HINES, III.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
COOPER v. FERGUSON
as 2:2019cv04030
Respondent:
TAMMY FERGUSON, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
Petitioner:
BENJAMIN COOPER
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.
