Cases 41 - 50 of 56
Smith v. Watkins et al
as 1:2010cv00645
Plaintiff:
Dana Lydell Smith
Defendant:
J Watkins, Flemming Geene, Butch Otter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cherry v. Cormier et al
as 3:2010cv00424
Plaintiff:
Stephen A Cherry
Defendant:
Jeffery Cormier, Albert March, Matt Street and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Eubank v. Smith et al
as 1:2010cv00245
Petitioner:
Thomas Edward Eubank
Respondent:
Johanna Smith and Lawrence Wasden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Oliveros v. Wengler et al
as 1:2010cv00241
Petitioner:
Juan R Oliveros
Respondent:
T Wengler and Lawrence Wasden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Kendall et al v. United States of America et al
as 1:2010cv00089
Plaintiff:
Gary Kendall, Raymond Corbus and Wendi Michalk
Defendant:
United States of America, State of Idaho, C. L. Otter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nampa Classical Academy et al v. Goesling et al
as 1:2009cv00427
Plaintiff:
Nampa Classical Academy, Nampa Classical Academy, Nampa Classical Academy and others
Defendant:
William Goesling, Brad Corkill, Gayann DeMordaunt and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Matthews v. Ashford et al
as 3:2009cv00289
Plaintiff:
Terence Matthews
Defendant:
Laura Ashford, Trema Carlin and Lawrence Wasden
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Balderama v. Blades et al
as 1:2008cv00311
Petitioner:
Jose Balderama
Respondent:
Randy Blades and Lawrence Wasden
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Workman v. Blades et al
as 1:2008cv00052
Petitioner:
Kenneth Workman
Respondent:
Randy Blades and Lawrence Wasden
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hernandez-Cuevas v. Wasden
as 1:2007cv00174
Petitioner:
Roberto Cuevas-Hernandez
Respondent:
Lawrence Wasden
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.
