Cases 11 - 20 of 20
Chad Davis v. William Stephens, Director
as 14-20620
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHAD FENLEY DAVIS
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Chad Davis v. William Stephens, Director
as 14-20261
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHAD FENLEY DAVIS
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Chad Davis v. William Stephens, Director
as 14-20079
Petitioner - Appellant:
CHAD FENLEY DAVIS
Respondent - Appellee:
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION
Davis v. Livingston, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
as 4:2012cv02919
Petitioner:
Chad Fenley Davis
Defendant:
Brad Livingston, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jones v. Lassiter et al
as 1:2011cv00067
Plaintiff:
Diane Jones
Defendant:
Lassiter and Chad E Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Waller v. Maples et al
as 1:2011cv00053
Plaintiff:
Kenneth L Waller
Defendant:
John Maples, Jr, Christopher T Budnik, Antonio Garcia, Jr and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
McCuistion v. Malmay et al
as 5:2010cv00107
Plaintiff:
Levi S McCuistion
Defendant:
Rodrick E Malmay, J Maples and Chad E Davis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Davis v. Snow et al
as 6:2008cv01232
Plaintiff:
Chad W. Davis
Defendant:
Herb Snow and Kevin Snow
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Davis v. Quarterman
as 4:2008cv01256
Petitioner:
Chad Fenley Davis
Respondent:
Nathaniel Quarterman
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Davis v. Astrue
as 5:2008cv06019
Plaintiff:
Chad W Davis
Defendant:
Michael J. Astrue
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
