Morrow v. Pash
Petitioner: Robert A. Morrow, Sr.
Respondent: Ronda Pash
Case Number: 4:2015cv00206
Filed: March 17, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Office: Kansas City Office
County: Cass
Presiding Judge: Gary A. Fenner
Presiding Judge: Prisoner Pro Se
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 13, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; (2) a certificate of appealability is denied; and (3) this case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on August 13, 2015 by District Judge Gary A. Fenner. (Thoennes, Cindy)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Missouri Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Morrow v. Pash
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert A. Morrow, Sr.
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Ronda Pash
Represented By: Caroline M. Coulter
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?