Cases 21 - 30 of 58
Scholl v. Neven et al
as 2:2015cv01657
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Nevada and D. W. Neven
Petitioner:
James A. Scholl
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stoltz v. Neven et al
as 2:2015cv00511
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Nevada and D. W. Neven
Petitioner:
Robert Stoltz
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thomas v. Neven et al
as 3:2015cv00071
Respondent:
Nevada Attorney General and D. W. Neven
Petitioner:
Kenneth Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Henderson v. Miles et al
as 5:2015cv03003
Petitioner:
Keith Henderson
Respondent:
(fnu) Miles, Robin Woods, (fnu) Johnson and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Sterling Beatty v. D. Nevens, et al
as 14-16788
Petitioner - Appellant:
STERLING P. BEATTY
Respondent - Appellee:
D. W. NEVENS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Osipo v. Neven et al
as 2:2014cv01418
Respondent:
Attorney General State of Nevada and D. W. Neven
Petitioner:
Frederick R. Osipo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Kevari v. Neven et al
as 2:2014cv01143
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Nevada and D. W. Neven
Petitioner:
Scott Allen Kevari
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CiBulka v. Neven et al
as 2:2014cv00644
Respondent:
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Warden D. W. Neven and Tonopah Conservation Camp
Petitioner:
James P. CiBulka
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Zeferino Elizondo v. D. Neven, et al
as 14-15719
Petitioner - Appellant:
ZEFERINO ELIZONDO
Respondent - Appellee:
D. W. NEVEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Carlos Valez v. D. Neven, et al
as 13-17587
Petitioner - Appellant:
CARLOS VALEZ
Respondent - Appellee:
D. W. NEVEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
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.
