Law v. Miller
Defendant: David Miller
Petitioner: Kareume Law
Case Number: 4:2009cv00805
Filed: December 23, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
Office: Tulsa Office
County: Adair
Presiding Judge: Paul J Cleary
Presiding Judge: Terence Kern
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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 8, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 15 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; adding party Justin Jones terminating party David Miller ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (vah, Chambers)
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 Oklahoma Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Law v. Miller
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Kareume Law
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 ]
Defendant: David Miller
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?