Cases 1 - 10 of 80
Crow v. Tulsa Technology Center School District No. 18
as 4:2023cv00544
Plaintiff:
Martin D Crow
Defendant:
Tulsa Technology Center and Tulsa Technology Center School District No. 18
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv00458
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 5 U.S.C. § 704 Labor Litigation
Fitts et al v. Newberry et al
as 4:2023cv00225
Plaintiff:
Colby Blake Fitts and Kayla Nicole Fitts
Defendant:
Don Newberry, Amy Strahan, Tiffany McDaniels Acting Head Teller doing business as Madison County Court and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Leonard v. Bridges
as 4:2023cv00055
Petitioner:
Don D Leonard
Respondent:
Scott Crow and Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hall v. Bridges
as 4:2022cv00524
Petitioner:
Larry D Hall
Respondent:
Scott Crow and Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Payne v. Crow
as 4:2022cv00472
Petitioner:
Kerry O Payne
Respondent:
Scott D Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McCurley v Crow
as 4:2022cv00471
Petitioner:
Kenneth Kelly McCurley
Respondent:
Scott Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Diaz v. Crow
as 4:2022cv00457
Petitioner:
Jose Manuel Diaz
Respondent:
Scott Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hamilton v. Crow
as 4:2022cv00434
Petitioner:
Anthony Emmett Hamilton, Jr
Respondent:
Scott Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mooney v. Crow
as 4:2022cv00415
Petitioner:
Joshua Scott Mooney
Respondent:
Scott Crow
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.
