Cases 111 - 120 of 1,649
Shoemaker v. State of Iowa
as 4:2023cv00051
Petitioner:
Logan Jeffrey Shoemaker
Respondent:
State of Iowa
Interested Party:
Aaron Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cook v. Stroud
as 4:2023cv00031
Petitioner:
Daniel Lee Cook
Respondent:
Marcy Stroud
Interested Party:
Aaron Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
White v. Lauristen et al
as 4:2023cv00027
Petitioner:
Lacresia Joy White
Defendant:
Steven Lauristen and Collete Peters
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Allen v. Lamb
as 6:2023cv02006
Petitioner:
Christopher Ryan Allen
Respondent:
Nicholas Lamb
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ruthers v. Turner
as 4:2023cv00018
Petitioner:
Thomas G. Ruthers, Jr.
Respondent:
Cory Turner
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Taylor v. State of Iowa
as 5:2023cv04003
Petitioner:
Ronald James Taylor
Respondent:
Iowa, State of
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Taylor v. State of Iowa
as 4:2023cv00008
Petitioner:
Ronald James Taylor
Respondent:
State of Iowa
Interested Party:
Aaron Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Tripp
as 4:2023cv00003
Petitioner:
Craig Eugene Smith
Respondent:
Chris Tripp
Interested Party:
Aaron Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. Anamosa State Penitentiary
as 1:2023af08888
Petitioner:
Test Smith
Respondent:
Anamosa State Penitentiary
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
King v. Iowa, State of
as 1:2022cv00163
Petitioner:
Daniel Frederick King, II
Respondent:
State of Iowa
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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.
