Cases 61 - 70 of 357
HUNT v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2022cv00768
Petitioner:
WYATT HUNT
Respondent:
MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SHAFEEK v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2022cv00628
Petitioner:
ATAUL SHAFEEK
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WAGNER v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 3:2022cv00030
Petitioner:
THOMAS FRANK WAGNER
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
DILLON v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2022cv00440
Petitioner:
BERNARD A DILLON
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RAGLAND v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2022cv00413
Petitioner:
ANDRA RAGLAND
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
ELLIS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, THE
as 2:2022cv00075
Petitioner:
RAHLIEGH X. ELLIS
Respondent:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, THE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
HATTON v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2022cv00350
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY N. HATTON
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA and MARK SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
WILKE-BREIGHTLING v. STATE OF INDIANA
as 1:2021cv02945
Petitioner:
ANDREW MICHAEL WILKE-BREIGHTLING
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
HATTON v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2021cv02861
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY N. HATTON
Respondent:
STATE OF INDIANA and MARK SEVIER
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
LESHORE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
as 2:2021cv00412
Petitioner:
JAMES LESHORE
Respondent:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
