Cases 1 - 10 of 162
Hurst v. Harpe et al
as 6:2024cv00209
Petitioner:
Shaun Lovell Franklin Hurst
Defendant:
Steven Harpe, Rick Williams and Gentner Drummond
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hill v. Rankins et al
as 5:2024cv00564
Petitioner:
Patrick Henry Hill, II
Respondent:
William C Rankins and Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Armstrong v. Rankins
as 4:2024cv00248
Petitioner:
Ryan T Armstrong
Respondent:
William Chris Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Shook v. Williams
as 5:2024cv00489
Petitioner:
Michael Sean Shook
Respondent:
Richard Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Armstrong v. Rankins
as 6:2024cv00148
Petitioner:
Ryan T. Armstrong
Respondent:
William Chris Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Norman v. Rankins
as 4:2024cv00182
Petitioner:
Marcell Jeron Norman
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Long et al v. Harrison
as 4:2024cv00165
Petitioner:
Richard W Long, Richard William Long and Sheryl D Dorman
Respondent:
Sharon Harrison
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stevens v. Rankins
as 4:2024cv00053
Petitioner:
Rodger D. Stevens
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Stevens v. Rankins
as 6:2024cv00047
Petitioner:
Rodger D. Stevens
Respondent:
William Rankins
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Oklahoma State of
as 5:2024cv00013
Petitioner:
William D Jones
Respondent:
Oklahoma State of
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.
