Rice v. White
| 2:2006cv11610 |
| April 4, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Unassigned |
| Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
80
ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion to Order Release 75 ; Denying Petitioner's Petition for Enforcement of the Court's Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus 78 ; and Denying as Moot Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Consideration 76 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER Deeming Moot Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Release 56 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
|
|
Filing
64
OPINION and ORDER granting 55 Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Consideration, taking under advisement 56 Petitioner' Motion for Immediate Release, Referring the Matter to Pretrial Services for and Investigation and Bond Recommendation, and Ordering Respondent to File Supplemental Brief. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
|
|
Filing
51
ORDER denying 47 Petitioner's Motion for Immediate Release. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
|
|
Filing
39
OPINION and ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (PMil)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Rice v. White | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
