Hodge v. Simpson

Respondent: Thomas L. Simpson
Petitioner: Benny Lee Hodge
Case Number: 7:2013cv00005
Filed: January 15, 2013
Court: Kentucky Eastern District Court
Office: Pikeville Office
County: Letcher
Referring Judge: Edward B Atkins
Presiding Judge: David L. Bunning
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
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
January 14, 2015 70 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER: Petitioner Benny Lee Hodge's Objections to Discovery & Evidentiary Hearing Order 62 be & are hereby overruled. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 1/14/2015. (RKT) cc: COR

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hodge v. Simpson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Thomas L. Simpson
Represented By: Julie Scott Jernigan
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 | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Benny Lee Hodge
Represented By: Laurence E. Komp
Represented By: Dennis J. Burke
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 | 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.