Cases 101 - 110 of 2,504
Dudley v. Hininger et al
as 4:2023cv00325
Plaintiff:
Dewayne Dudley
Defendant:
Damon T Hininger, Terrance Dickerson and Holly McNulty
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Vanwoudenberg v. Harvanek
as 4:2023cv00321
Petitioner:
Edward John Vanwoudenberg
Respondent:
Kameron Harvanek
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hendrix v. Harpe
as 4:2023cv00322
Petitioner:
Jimmy Glenn Hendrix
Respondent:
Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Alberty v. Rankins
as 4:2023cv00312
Petitioner:
Farron Whitney Alberty
Respondent:
United States of America, William Rankins and Chris Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bolin v. Oklahoma, State of
as 4:2023cv00296
Plaintiff:
David Wayne Bolin
Defendant:
Oklahoma, State of and State of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
King v. Tjeerdsma et al
as 4:2023cv00298
Plaintiff:
Ra'Terrius King
Defendant:
John Tjeerdsma, Jeffery Gatwood, Tulsa County Police Department and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00299
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 5 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00300
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 5 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
Cannon v. State of Oklahoma, The
as 4:2023cv00293
Petitioner:
Jemaine Monteil Cannon
Respondent:
State of Oklahoma, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
O'Rourke v. Bridges
as 4:2023cv00290
Petitioner:
Bryan Christopher O'Rourke
Respondent:
Carrie Bridges
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.
