Cases 11 - 20 of 3,408
Gerald Locke, Sr. v. Brent Fluke, Warden, et al
as 24-1920
Petitioner:
Gerald D. Locke, Sr.
Respondent:
Brent Fluke, Warden and Attorney General of South Dakota
Will LaClaire v. Teresa Bittinger, et al
as 24-1925
Plaintiff:
Will C. LaClaire
Defendant:
Teresa L. Bittinger and Attorney General for the State of South Dakota
Diego Morales-Ortega v. Merrick Garland
as 24-1910
Petitioner:
Diego Herlindo Morales-Ortega
Respondent:
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Maria Weidenburner v. Merrick B. Garland
as 24-1903
Petitioner:
Maria Isabel Weidenburner
Respondent:
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Russell Lindquist v. Vicki Taylor, et al
as 24-1876
Plaintiff:
Russell Floyd Lindquist
Defendant:
Vicki Taylor, individually and officially as Assistant Chief Judge in Dakota County (DC), First Judicial District, Keith M. Ellison, officially as Minnesota Attorney General, Matt Smith, officially as DC Manager and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 24-1832
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Martinez v. Whitmire
as 8:2024cv00140
Petitioner:
Adrian Gutierrez Martinez
Respondent:
Don Whitmire
Interested Party:
Nebraska Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Npimnee v. Settles
as 8:2024cv00130
Petitioner:
Hope T. Npimnee
Respondent:
Shaun Settles
Interested Party:
Nebraska Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Merrick B. Garland v. Rony Soto Santos
as 24-1733
Petitioner:
Rony Alfredo Soto Santos
Respondent:
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Kramer v. Probation
as 8:2024cv00123
Petitioner:
Tim Kramer
Respondent:
Probation
Interested Party:
Nebraska Attorney General
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.
