Cases 31 - 40 of 46
Conway v. Berkebile et al
as 7:2011cv00065
Plaintiff:
Robert Conway
Defendant:
Berkebile and Parole Commission
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Morris v. Conway
as 3:2011cv00211
Petitioner:
Robert Morris
Respondent:
Jack Conway
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Applegate v. Beckstrom et al
as 0:2010cv00115
Petitioner:
Roy Applegate
Respondent:
Gary Beckstrom and Jack Conway
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Long v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al
as 4:2010cv00107
Petitioner:
Elbert Phillip Long
Respondent:
Commonwealth of Kentucky and Jack Conway
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Brown v. Conway et al
as 3:2009cv00989
Plaintiff:
Curtis L. Brown
Defendant:
Jack Conway and J. David Donahue
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rayner v. Parnell et al
as 3:2009cv00817
Petitioner:
Barry W. Rayner
Respondent:
Ricky Parnell, LaDonna Thompson, Jack Conway and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Walker v. Goyette et al
as 3:2009cv00663
Plaintiff:
Ronny Deviod Walker
Defendant:
Daniel T. Goyette, Ed Monahan, R. David Stengel and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Scott et al v. City of Louisville Metro et al
as 5:2009cv00152
Plaintiff:
Vincent Louis Scott and Barry Wayne Rayner
Defendant:
City of Louisville Metro, Jerry Abramson, Steve Beshear and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rayner v. City of Louisville Metro et al
as 3:2009cv00488
Plaintiff:
Barry Wayne Rayner
Defendant:
City of Louisville Metro, Jerry Abramson, Steve Beshear and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Teague v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al
as 3:2009cv00476
Plaintiff:
Ja-Ron S. Teague
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Steve Beshear, Janie Miller 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.
