Cases 61 - 70 of 355
Dick v. Fahey
as 3:2010cv00505
Petitioner:
Joseph J. Dick, Jr.
Respondent:
Helen Fahey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jonathan Riches v. Amanda Hughes, et al
as 10-6038
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JONATHAN LEE RICHES, aka Steve Jobs; dba Apple Computers Ipad CFO
Defendant - Appellee:
AMANDA HUGHES, aka Amanda Leigh Hughes; dba RDAP Drug Treatment Staff and RESIDENTIAL DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM
De'Lonta v. Fulmore et al
as 1:2010cv00838
Plaintiff:
Ophelia De'Lonta
Defendant:
R. Fulmore, Anthony Scott and Eddie Pearson
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Skakel v. Murphy
as 3:2007cv01625
Plaintiff:
Michael C. Skakel, Michael C. Skakel and Michael C. Skakel
Defendant:
Peter J. Murphy
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Chisolm v. Anderson
as 3:2010cv00574
Defendant:
Doug Anderson
Plaintiff:
Gregory J. Chisolm
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RICHES v. BUSH et al
as 2:2006cv01055
Defendant:
USAMA BIN LADEN, SHADY RECORDS INC, GEORGE W. BUSH and others
Plaintiff:
JONATHAN LEE RICHES
Petitioner:
DANIEL ANTHONY WEYMOUTH and PATRICK J. SIMPSON
Not Yet Classified:
M. C. HAMMER
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Wilson v. Flaherty
as 3:2010cv00536
Petitioner:
Eric C. Wilson
Respondent:
W. Steven Flaherty
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Nichols v. United States of America et al
as 1:2009cv00558
Plaintiff:
Terry L. Nichols
Defendant:
USA, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Harley Lappin and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Tiedemann v. Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints
as 5:2009cv03231
Plaintiff:
Edgar Tiedemann
Defendant:
Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Williams v. Fahey
as 3:2009cv00769
Petitioner:
Danial J. Williams
Respondent:
Helen Fahey
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.
