Lindquist v. Davis
Petitioner: Paul Edward Lindquist
Respondent: John Davis
Case Number: 4:2014cv00692
Filed: November 18, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
Office: Tulsa Office
County: Creek
Presiding Judge: Claire V Eagan
Presiding Judge: T Lane Wilson
Nature of Suit: General
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
February 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 16 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; denying certificate of appealability; granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion to Dismiss; denying 9 Motion to Strike; finding as moot 12 Motion for Hearing; finding as moot 14 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241/2254) (RGG, 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: Lindquist v. Davis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: John Davis
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 ]
Petitioner: Paul Edward Lindquist
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?