Cases 61 - 70 of 73
Villegas v. Mendoza-Powers
as 1:2007cv00230
Petitioner:
Gustavo Villegas
Respondent:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Ronald Paul Clark v. Kathy Mendoza-Powers
as 2:2007cv00958
Petitioner:
Ronald Paul Clark
Respondent:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Barton v. Mendoza-Powers
as 3:2007cv00211
Petitioner:
Eddie Barton
Respondent:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Trevino v. Mendoza-Powers
as 1:2007cv00169
Petitioner:
Arnold Trevino
Defendant:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Phillips v. Mendoza-Powers
as 1:2007cv00122
Petitioner:
Victor Phillips
Respondent:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
McGuire v. Mendoza-Powers
as 1:2007cv00086
Petitioner:
Mark McGuire
Respondent:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Miers v. Mendoza-Powers
as 2:2007cv00441
Petitioner:
Christopher David Miers
Respondent:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers and Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Miers v. Mendoza-Powers
as 1:2007cv00047
Petitioner:
Christopher David Miers
Respondent:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mark Oliver Barros v. Kathy Mendoza-Powers
as 5:2007cv00030
Petitioner:
Mark Oliver Barros
Respondent:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Faught v. Mendoza-Powers
as 1:2007cv00023
Plaintiff:
Emmett L Faught
Defendant:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
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.
