Cases 21 - 29 of 29
MAIDEN v. RUSSELL et al
as 1:2010cv00766
Defendant:
FRANK L FRITCH, RICHARD L RUSSELL and TIPTON COUNTY OF INDIANA
Plaintiff:
JAMES R MAIDEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Maiden v. Menges et al
as 1:2010cv00737
Defendant:
HOWARD COUNTY OF INDIANA and WILLIAM C MENGES
Plaintiff:
JAMES R MAIDEN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Maiden v. Russell et al
as 4:2010cv00055
Plaintiff:
James R Maiden
Defendant:
Richard L Russell, Frank L Fritch and Tipton County of Indiana
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Maiden v. Menges et al
as 4:2010cv00046
Plaintiff:
James R Maiden
Defendant:
William C Menges and Howard County of Indiana
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
John Carnes v. Lynette Rice, et al
as 09-3915
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JOHN M. CARNES
Defendant - Appellee:
LYNETTE A. RICE, THOMAS RICE, CHARLENE STEVENS, and Issue et al. and others
CEBALLO v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF INDIANA et al
as 2:2009cv04982
Petitioner:
WELINTON CEBALLO
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF INDIANA, MAZARKIEWICZ and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
CLARK v. HUMPHREY et al
as 4:2008cv00084
Plaintiff:
BART CLARK
Defendant:
JUDGE HUMPHREY, LAWRENCEBURG MENTAL HEALTH and DEARBORN COUNTY, LAWRENCEBURG, INDIANA
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Melvin Boord, Jr. v. Marilyn Brooks, et al
as 08-1899
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MELVIN WARREN BOORD, JR.
Defendant:
MARILYN BROOKS, ATTY GEN PA and ROBERT S. BELL, The District Attorney of the County of Indiana
LEAPHART v. PALAKOVICH et al
as 2:2007cv00465
Petitioner:
HAROLD EDWIN LEAPHART
Respondent:
JOHN A. PALAKOVICH, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF INDIANA
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.
