Cases 21 - 30 of 203
Scheetz v. Weber et al
as 4:2013cv04011
Petitioner:
Daryl T. Scheetz
Respondent:
Douglas Weber and The Attorney General of the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lohnes v. Weber et al
as 4:2012cv04196
Petitioner:
Burton Lohnes
Respondent:
Douglas Weber and Attorney General of the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Chambers v. Weber et al
as 4:2012cv04191
Plaintiff:
Alvin Roy Chambers
Defendant:
Warden Douglas Weber and E.R. Regier
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Creek v. Weber
as 4:2012cv04188
Petitioner:
Clayton Sheldon Creek
Respondent:
Douglas L. Weber
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Running Bird v. Weber et al
as 4:2012cv04187
Petitioner:
Harold Running Bird
Respondent:
Douglas Weber and The Attorney General of the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blackcloud v. Kaemingk et al
as 4:2012cv04168
Plaintiff:
Edward P. Blackcloud
Defendant:
Dennis Kaemingk, Doug Weber, Bob Dooley and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Holzer v. Weber et al
as 4:2012cv04159
Petitioner:
Rod Holzer
Respondent:
Doug Weber and Marty Jackley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Armstrong et al v. Weber et al
as 4:2012cv04145
Plaintiff:
Gregory Armstrong, Tracy Armstrong and R. A.
Defendant:
Douglas Weber, Dennis Kaemingk, Daryl Slykhuis and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Muhm v. Weber et al
as 4:2012cv04117
Petitioner:
Thomas Muhm
Respondent:
Douglas Weber and Marty Jackley
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Johnson v. Weber et al
as 4:2012cv04106
Plaintiff:
Leslie John Johnson
Defendant:
Douglas L. Weber, Brandi Csordacsics and Heather Bowers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
