Cases 91 - 100 of 116
Holleman v. Ryan et al
as 4:2015cv00119
Petitioner:
Corey Lamont Holleman
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2014cv02355
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Tillard v. Crawford
as 2:2014cv01505
Plaintiff:
Thomas Lamont Tillard
Defendant:
Jade Crawford
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Brown v. Arizona, State of
as 4:2014cv02009
Petitioner:
Robert Lamont Brown
Respondent:
Arizona, State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Woods v. Ryan et al
as 2:2014cv00140
Respondent:
Charles L Ryan and Attorney General of the State of Arizona
Petitioner:
Christopher Lamont Woods
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Futch v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al
as 2:2013cv02163
Defendant:
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Arizona Department of Economic Security and others
Plaintiff:
Darnell Lamont Futch
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Summage v. Winn
as 4:2013cv01293
Petitioner:
Kerwin Lamont Summage
Respondent:
Louis Winn, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Williams v. USA
as 2:2013cv01678
Respondent:
USA
Petitioner:
Christopher Lamont Williams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence
Futch v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al
as 2:2013cv01262
Plaintiff:
Darnell Lamont Futch
Defendant:
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Arizona Department of Economic Security and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Summage v. United States of America
as 4:2013cv00417
Petitioner:
Kerwin Lamont Summage
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
