Cases 91 - 100 of 449
Smith v. Fields et al
as 1:2015cv00166
Petitioner:
Willie Smith
Respondent:
Marshall Fields and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Miller v. State of Mississippi et al
as 4:2015cv00132
Petitioner:
Steven Gregory Miller
Respondent:
State of Mississippi and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gibbs v. Simon et al
as 4:2015cv00131
Petitioner:
Henry Gibbs, Jr.
Respondent:
Lee Simon, Stanciel and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rice v. State of Mississippi et al
as 4:2015cv00126
Petitioner:
David Lee Rice
Respondent:
State of Mississippi and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Page v. Lee et al
as 1:2015cv00161
Petitioner:
Isreal Page
Respondent:
Earnest Lee and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Willis v. Fisher et al
as 4:2015cv00119
Petitioner:
Derrick Willis
Respondent:
Marshall Fisher and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Sharp v. Lee et al
as 1:2015cv00160
Petitioner:
Timothy R. Sharp
Respondent:
Ernest Lee and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Archer v. Fisher et al
as 4:2015cv00101
Petitioner:
Ricky Archer
Respondent:
Marshall L. Fisher and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Whetstone v. MDOC Parole Board et al
as 1:2015cv00139
Petitioner:
Nevin Kerr Whetstone
Respondent:
MDOC Parole Board and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Humphrey v. Banks et al
as 3:2015cv00137
Petitioner:
Omar Khayyam Humphrey
Respondent:
Jacquelyn Banks and Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
