Cases 41 - 50 of 639
v. Murphy et al
as 5:2009cv00557
Petitioner:
Tracey W. Murphy
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Spearman v. Quarterman
as 5:2009cv00553
Petitioner:
Sedrick Dewayne Spearman
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Guel-Rivas v. Stephens
as 6:2009cv00186
Petitioner:
Jose De Jesus Guel-Rivas
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Guel-Rivas v. Quarterman
as 5:2009cv00552
Petitioner:
Jose De Jesus Guel-Rivas
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Tolliver v. Quarterman
as 5:2009cv00554
Petitioner:
Kenneth Tolliver
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Guidroz v. Quarterman
as 5:2009cv00547
Petitioner:
Robert James Guidroz
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Gutierrez v. Quarterman
as 5:2009cv00543
Petitioner:
Geronimo Rene Gutierrez and Geronimo Rene Gutierrez
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Glover v. Quarterman
as 5:2009cv00538
Petitioner:
Earnest Lee Glover, Jr.
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Hill v. Quarterman
as 5:2009cv00534
Petitioner:
Ray Hill
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Glover v. Quarterman
as 5:2009cv00539
Petitioner:
Earnest Lee Glover, Jr.
Respondent:
Nathaniel A. Quarterman
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.
