Cases 21 - 30 of 120
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2022cv01372
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Windeknecht v. Hacker
as 4:2022cv01325
Petitioner:
Larry E. Windeknecht
Respondent:
Denise Hacker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jaymes Stark v. Jana Hacker, et al
as 22-3448
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Jaymes Anthony Stark
Defendant / Appellee:
Jana Hacker, Karen Anderson, Dr. Joel Kosinski and others
Dean Davidson v. State of Missouri, et al
as 22-3308
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Dean Bryan Davidson
Defendant / Appellee:
State of Missouri, Denise Hacker, C.O.O. of the Southeast MO Mental Health Center and Mark Stringer, Director of the MO Dept. of Mental Health
Williams v. Hacker
as 4:2022cv00658
Petitioner:
Rodney Vashon Williams
Respondent:
Denise Hacker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davidson v. Stringer et al
as 4:2022cv00897
Plaintiff:
Dean Bryan Davidson
Defendant:
Mark Stringer, Denise Hacker and State of Missouri
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Davidson v. State of Missouri et al
as 4:2022cv00898
Plaintiff:
Dean Bryan Davidson
Defendant:
State of Missouri, Mark Stringer and Denise Hacker
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McGee v. Hacker
as 4:2022cv00891
Petitioner:
Kevin D. McGee
Respondent:
Denise Hacker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Williams v. Hacker
as 4:2022cv00866
Petitioner:
Rodney Vashon Williams
Respondent:
Denise Hacker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Kennemore v. Huhn et al
as 4:2022cv00805
Plaintiff:
Daniel E. Kennemore
Defendant:
Valerie Huhn, Angeline Stanislaus, Denise Hacker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
