WENTZ v. COTTON

Petitioner: JASON WENTZ
Respondent: ZETTIE COTTON
Case Number: 1:2003cv01197
Filed: January 20, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge: David Frank Hamilton
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 20, 2009 Filing 32 ENTRY DISCUSSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. For the reasons set forth in this Entry, the petition for writ of habeas corpus must be DENIED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 1/20/2009. c/m. (LBK)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: WENTZ v. COTTON
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: ZETTIE COTTON
Represented By: James Blaine Martin
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 ]
Petitioner: JASON WENTZ
Represented By: Joseph Moutin Cleary
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?