Cases 21 - 30 of 44
Patrick Hirt v. Sam Law
as 10-35160
Petitioner - Appellant:
PATRICK KEITH HIRT
Respondent - Appellee:
SAM LAW
Patrick Hirt v. Sam Law, et al
as 10-35152
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PATRICK KEITH HIRT
Defendant - Appellee:
SAM LAW, MIKE MAHONEY, MIKE FERRITER and others
Silversky v. Law et al
as 1:2010cv00012
Petitioner:
Jonathon Silversky
Respondent:
Sam Law and Attorney General of the State of Montana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Haffey v. Law et al
as 9:2009cv00175
Petitioner:
Stephen Patrick Haffey
Respondent:
Sam Law and Attorney General of the State of Montana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
White v. 16th District Court et al
as 1:2009cv00165
Plaintiff:
Joel Miles White
Defendant:
16th District Court, Mike Ferriter, Lisa Grady and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Daniel v. Law et al
as 6:2009cv00069
Plaintiff:
Karen Camille Daniel
Defendant:
Sam Law, Attorney General of the State of Montana, Al Kinsey and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Hirt v. Law et al
as 4:2009cv00106
Plaintiff:
Patrick Keith Hirt
Defendant:
Sam Law, Mike Mahoney, Mike Ferriter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Rodney Edmundson v. James MacDonald, et al
as 09-35933
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RODNEY A. EDMUNDSON
Defendant - Appellee:
JAMES MACDONALD, Warden, SAM LAW, R. STURCHIO and others
Archer v. Law et al
as 2:2009cv00073
Petitioner:
Maurice Ronald Archer
Respondent:
Sam Law, Mike Mahoney and Attorney General of the State of Montana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fletcher v. Law et al
as 4:2009cv00073
Plaintiff:
Paul Hartson Fletcher
Defendant:
Sam Law, Assistant Warden Ivins, Mike Ferriter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
