Goff v. Bagley
Petitioner: James R Goff
Respondent: Margaret Bagley
Case Number: 1:2002cv00307
Filed: May 1, 2002
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: RICHLAND
Presiding Judge: James L Graham
Presiding Judge: Terence P Kemp
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
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
November 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 103 OPINION AND ORDER denying 102 Motion to Continue Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 11/7/11. (ds) Modified on 11/8/2011 to clarify text (kk2)
May 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 101 ORDER denying 99 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 05/09/11. (ds)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Goff v. Bagley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: James R Goff
Represented By: W Joseph Edwards
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: Margaret Bagley
Represented By: Laurence R Snyder
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?