Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2022cv60610
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2022cv60611
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
VINES v. CREWS
as 3:2014cv00191
Petitioner:
KAULMAN REESE VINES
Respondent:
MICHAEL D CREWS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
VINING v. SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
as 1:2013cv00246
Petitioner:
JOHN VINING
Defendant:
SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Vining v. Chief Doctor
as 3:2013cv01421
Plaintiff:
John Bruce Vining
Defendant:
Chief Doctor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Vines v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
as 3:2013cv00913
Petitioner:
Michael Anthony Vines
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections and Florida Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blakley et al v. Collier County Sheriff Office et al
as 3:2011cv00315
Plaintiff:
Alexia Juliet Blakley and Jesse Thomas Blakley
Defendant:
Collier County Sheriff Office, Pre Clerks Office of Collier County, Rego Act Vine Imburstment and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Blakley et al v. Collier County Sheriff Office et al
as 2:2011cv00194
Plaintiff:
Alexia Juliet Blakley and Jesse Thomas Blakley
Defendant:
Collier County Sheriff Office, Pre Clerks Office of Collier County, Rego Act Vine Imburstment and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
v. Vining et al
as 6:2007cv01218
Defendant:
John B. Vining and United States Parole Commission
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Vining v. Nazarchuk et al
as 6:2007cv00972
Petitioner:
John B. Vining
Respondent:
Dan Nazarchuk, K. Dawn Nazarchuk, Secretary Department of Corrections and others
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.
