Cases 41 - 50 of 101
Willie McAdams v. Lorie Davis, Director
as 16-20327
Petitioner - Appellant:
WILLIE JOE MCADAMS
Respondent - Appellee:
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
McAdams v Uttecht
as 2:2016cv00111
Petitioner:
Grant Thomas McAdams
Respondent:
Jeffery Uttecht
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
McAdam v. Solicitor General of the United States et al
as 1:2016cv00541
Plaintiff:
Toby McAdam
Defendant:
Solicitor General of the United States, Thomas Hale, Deborah Denahm and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McAdams #63838 v. Corizon Healthcare Incorporated et al
as 2:2016cv00337
Plaintiff:
Adam McAdams
Defendant:
Corizon Healthcare Incorporated, Unknown Chu, Charles L Ryan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McAdams v. Stephens
as 4:2016cv00088
Petitioner:
Willie Joe McAdams
Respondent:
William Stephens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Christopher McAdams v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al
as 15-3693
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM MCADAMS
Defendant - Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE
McAdams v. Warner
as 2:2015cv00239
Petitioner:
Grant Thomas McAdams
Respondent:
Bernie Warner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Tant v. Frick et al
as 3:2015cv03001
Plaintiff:
David Ray Tant
Defendant:
William Frick , South Carolina Office of the Attorney General , South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WILSON v. PERRY et al
as 1:2015cv00585
Plaintiff:
EARL LEE WILSON
Defendant:
FRANK PERRY, W. OSMUND SMITH, PAUL C. RIDGEWAY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MCADAMS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
as 2:2015cv00798
Petitioner:
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM MCADAMS
Respondent:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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.
