Cases 1 - 10 of 169
Hopper et al v. Weygand et al
as 4:2024cv00212
Plaintiff:
Keith-Dewane Hopper and Deanna-Lyn Dale
Defendant:
Jordan Weygand, Robert Glasby, Steven Kunzweiler and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
American Bank of Oklahoma v. Hayes et al
as 4:2024cv00094
Plaintiff:
American Bank of Oklahoma
Defendant:
Steven Lee Hayes, Sr, United States of America Internal Revenue Service, State of Oklahoma and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Stevens v. Rankins
as 4:2024cv00053
Petitioner:
Rodger D. Stevens
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rhoades v. Bowling et al
as 4:2024cv00012
Plaintiff:
Dayton Rhoades and Dusty Rhoades
Defendant:
Bret Bowling, Creek County Board of County Commissioners, Steven Ray and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Glasscock v. Kelsey et al
as 4:2023cv00518
Plaintiff:
Steven Glasscock
Defendant:
Jason Kelsey and USPS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Davison v Harpe
as 4:2023cv00456
Petitioner:
Alonzo G Davison
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Lasley v. Harpe
as 4:2023cv00446
Petitioner:
Tori Lynn Lasley
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ferrell v. Harpe
as 4:2023cv00441
Petitioner:
Johnny Van Ferrell, Jr
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Foy v. Drummond et al
as 4:2023cv00407
Petitioner:
Clint Patrick Foy
Respondent:
Gentner Drummond and Steven Kunzweiler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nunley v. Harpe
as 4:2023cv00380
Petitioner:
Eugene Todd Nunley
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
