Cases 51 - 60 of 111
Holmes v. McKune et al
as 5:2009cv03151
Petitioner:
Melvin Holmes
Respondent:
David R. McKune and Attorney General of Kansas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. McKune
as 09-3156
Plaintiff - Appellant:
BENNY R. SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
DAVID R. MCKUNE, Warden, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility
Pink v. McKune et al
as 5:2009cv03121
Petitioner:
Malcolm T. Pink
Respondent:
David R. McKune and Steven Six
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kinnell v. United States District Court Judges et al
as 5:2009cv03100
Plaintiff:
Rolly O. Kinnell
Defendant:
United States District Court Judges, Tenth Circuit Court Judges, State of Kansas and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. McKune
as 5:2009cv03094
Plaintiff:
Benny R. Smith
Defendant:
David R. McKune
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Waitzmann v. McKune et al
as 5:2009cv03089
Petitioner:
Michael Waitzmann
Respondent:
David R. McKune and Attorney General of Kansas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hailes v. McKune et al
as 5:2009cv03058
Plaintiff:
Ronald Allen Hailes
Defendant:
David R. McKune and (fnu) Asbury
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Kinnell v. Vratil et al
as 5:2009cv03057
Plaintiff:
Rolly O. Kinnell
Defendant:
Kathryn H. Vratil, Sam A. Crow, David R. McKune and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Tolen v. McKune et al
as 5:2009cv03031
Petitioner:
Garnet C. Tolen
Respondent:
David R. McKune and Stephen Six
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Swanner v. McKune, et al
as 08-3352
Petitioner - Appellant:
CLAYTON SWANNER
Respondent - Appellee:
MICHAEL NELSON, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility, DAVID R. MCKUNE, Warden, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility and STEPHEN N. SIX, Kansas Attorney General
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.
