Search Federal District Court filings
Party Name (optional):
Cases Filed In:
Lawsuit Type:
Show:
Cases Filed:
and
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Barba-Rejon v. Adams

(What's this?) What is the EasyEdit button? This website gets better when people like you add to it. Just click the EasyEdit button to start. (help)
Petitioner:Misael Eduardo Barba-Rejon
Respondent:Derral G. Adams
 
Case Number:4:2009cv05052
Filed:October 23, 2009
 
Court:California Northern District Court
Office:Oakland Office [ Court Info ]
County:Kings
Presiding Judge:Hon. Claudia Wilken
 
Nature of Suit:P. Petitions - General
Cause:28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jurisdiction:Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:None
Search for this case: Barba-Rejon v. Adams
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Misael Eduardo Barba-Rejon
Search Dockets[ Dockets ]
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance[ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Derral G. Adams
Search Dockets[ Dockets ]
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance[ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]


The Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets site republishes public litigation records retrieved from the US Federal District Courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Justia.