Cases 21 - 30 of 70
Whisnant v. Carlton et al
as 2:2010cv00064
Petitioner:
Gregory L Whisnant
Respondent:
Howard Carlton and State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Whisnant v. Carlton et al
as 1:2010cv00142
Petitioner:
Gregory L Whisnant
Respondent:
Howard Carlton and State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Thomas v. Carlton
as 3:2010cv00022
Petitioner:
Howard Walter Thomas and Howard Walter Thomas
Respondent:
Howard Carlton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Writer v. Carlton
as 2:2009cv00271
Petitioner:
Raymond P Writer
Respondent:
Howard Carlton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Brown v. Carlton
as 3:2009cv01024
Petitioner:
Ricky Flamingo Brown, Sr.
Respondent:
Howard Carlton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Norton v. Carlton et al
as 2:2009cv00203
Petitioner:
Richard L Norton
Respondent:
Howard Carlton, Rubren Hodge and State of Tennessee
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Erwin v. Carlton et al
as 2:2009cv00182
Plaintiff:
Eddie Erwin
Defendant:
Howard Carlton, Fred Ramsey, Donald Henson and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Blye v. Carlton
as 2:2009cv00162
Petitioner:
Allen P Blye
Respondent:
Howard Carlton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rogers v. Tennessee Department of Correction et al
as 2:2009cv00137
Plaintiff:
Danny Rogers
Defendant:
Tennessee Department of Correction, Howard Carlton, Preston William and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Overbay v. Carlton
as 2:2009cv00126
Petitioner:
Thomas W Overbay
Respondent:
Howard Carlton
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.
