Cases 11 - 20 of 312
Williams v. Crow et al
as 5:2023cv00270
Petitioner:
Deveyon Edreace Williams
Respondent:
Scott Crow and Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Davis v. Crow et al
as 5:2023cv00219
Plaintiff:
Antoine Davis
Defendant:
Director DOC Scott Crow, GEO Group Inc, Amber Martin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Leonard v. Bridges
as 4:2023cv00055
Petitioner:
Don D Leonard
Respondent:
Scott Crow and Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hall v. Bridges
as 4:2022cv00524
Petitioner:
Larry D Hall
Respondent:
Scott Crow and Carrie Bridges
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hancock v. Harpe
as 5:2022cv00976
Plaintiff:
Phillip Hancock
Defendant:
Scott Crow and Steven Harpe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Fournerat v. Reed Smith LLP et al
as 6:2022cv00315
Plaintiff:
Wayne M Fournerat
Defendant:
Reed Smith LLP, Reed Smith LLC, Tamara Box and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Blankenship et al v. Stitt et al
as 5:2022cv00958
Plaintiff:
John Hayden Blankenship, Haylee Blankenship, Delsie Mae Pye and others
Defendant:
John Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, John or Jane Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Day v. Crow
as 5:2022cv00944
Petitioner:
Chavis L Day
Respondent:
Scott Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Payne v. Crow
as 4:2022cv00472
Petitioner:
Kerry O Payne
Respondent:
Scott D Crow
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McCurley v Crow
as 4:2022cv00471
Petitioner:
Kenneth Kelly McCurley
Respondent:
Scott Crow
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.
