Webb v. Wolfenbarger
Petitioner: Charles Webb
Respondent: Hugh Wolfenbarger
Case Number: 2:2008cv12692
Filed: June 23, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
County: Macomb
Presiding Judge: Scheer
Presiding Judge: Steeh
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: No cause code entered
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
March 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 15 OPINION AND ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
February 11, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 12 OPINION and ORDER Dismissing with prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Denying a Certificate of Appealability and Denying Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (NHol)
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: Webb v. Wolfenbarger
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Charles Webb
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: Hugh Wolfenbarger
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?