Gleason v. Pearson

Petitioner: Robert Charles Gleason, Jr.
Respondent: Eddie L. Pearson
Case Number: 7:2012cv00619
Filed: December 20, 2012
Court: Virginia Western District Court
Office: Roanoke Office
Presiding Judge: Glen E. Conrad
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
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
January 10, 2013 28 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 1/10/2013. (ssm)
May 14, 2013 40 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 05/14/2013. (kab)

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 Virginia Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Gleason v. Pearson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert Charles Gleason, Jr.
Represented By: Jonathan Paul Sheldon
Represented By: Joseph Thomas Flood
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Eddie L. Pearson
Represented By: Katherine Baldwin Burnett
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 [ 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.