Cases 41 - 50 of 415
Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
as 3:2022cv00663
Petitioner:
Christopher Vaughn
Respondent:
State of Tennessee and Daron Hall
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Wade v. State of Tennessee
as 3:2022cv00660
Petitioner:
Marcus Thurman Wade
Respondent:
State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Loucks v. State of Tennessee et al
as 3:2022cv00617
Petitioner:
Paul Loucks
Respondent:
State of Tennessee and Dickson County
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Thurman v. Attorney General for the State of Tennessee et al
as 3:2022cv00615
Petitioner:
James D. Thurman
Respondent:
Attorney General for the State of Tennessee and State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Bennett v. Bedford County, Tennessee et al
as 3:2022cv00586
Plaintiff:
Matthew David Bennett
Defendant:
Bedford County, Tennessee, Chad Graham, State of Tennessee and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Smith v. State of Tennessee, The
as 1:2022cv00009
Petitioner:
Jarus Smith
Respondent:
State of Tennessee, The
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Pearson v. Attorney General of the State of Tennessee
as 3:2021cv00908
Petitioner:
Harry W. Pearson
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Hamby v. State of Tennessee
as 2:2021cv00032
Petitioner:
Darren B. Hamby
Respondent:
State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Taylor v. State of Tennessee
as 3:2021cv00558
Petitioner:
Corey D. Taylor
Respondent:
State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rucker v. Purviance et al
as 3:2021cv00555
Plaintiff:
Morris Rucker
Defendant:
Jim Purviance, Richard Montgomery, Zane Duncan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
