Davis v. Booker
Petitioner: Thomas Davis
Respondent: Raymond Booker
Case Number: 2:2002cv75063
Filed: December 24, 2002
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
County: Gratiot
Presiding Judge: Mona K Majzoub
Presiding Judge: Arthur J Tarnow
Nature of Suit: General
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
June 26, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 76 OPINION and ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 74 . Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (McColley, N)
January 22, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 64 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER conditionally granting 3 Petition for a writ of habeas corpus Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (DHam)
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 Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Davis v. Booker
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Thomas Davis
Represented By: Federal Defender
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: Raymond Booker
Represented By: Brian O. Neill
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?