Cases 1 - 10 of 10
Dawson v. Winn
as 2:2019cv10388
Respondent:
Tom Winn and Thomas Winn
Petitioner:
Donnie Thomas Dawson
Dawson v. Premo et al
as 6:2015cv00568
Petitioner:
Craig Thomas Dawson
Respondent:
Jeff Premo, State Parole Board and Washington County D.A.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dawson v. Premo et al
as 6:2014cv01100
Petitioner:
Craig Thomas Dawson
Respondent:
Oregon State Penn and Supt. Jeff Premo
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Craig Dawson v. Brian Belleque
as 12-35569
Petitioner - Appellant:
CRAIG THOMAS DAWSON
Respondent - Appellee:
BRIAN BELLEQUE
Craig Dawson v. Brian Belleque
as 12-35555
Petitioner - Appellant:
CRAIG THOMAS DAWSON
Respondent - Appellee:
BRIAN BELLEQUE
Craig Dawson v. Oregon State Board of Parole &
as 10-35070
Petitioner - Appellant:
CRAIG THOMAS DAWSON
Respondent - Appellee:
OREGON STATE BOARD OF PAROLE & POST-PRISON SUPERVISION
Craig Dawson v. State of Oregon, et al
as 09-36101
Petitioner - Appellant:
CRAIG THOMAS DAWSON
Respondent - Appellee:
STATE OF OREGON, DOUG HARCELROD and MARY ANN BEARDEN
Dawson v. Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prision Supervision
as 3:2009cv01218
Petitioner:
Craig Thomas Dawson
Respondent:
Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prision Supervision
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dawson v. State of Oregon et al
as 3:2009cv01198
Petitioner:
Craig Thomas Dawson
Respondent:
State of Oregon, Doug Harcelrod and Mary Ann Bearden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Dawson v. Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision et al
as 3:2009cv01142
Petitioner:
Craig Thomas Dawson
Respondent:
Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision and John Kroger
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.
