Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv03201
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv01018
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv03197
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv03185
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2026cv13716
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
SE Synod Of The Evangelical Lutheran Church, et al v. Steven Finney, et al
as 26-5990
Defendant:
HANS SCHWENDIMANN, All in their official capacities as the district attorneys general of Tennessee, CHRIS STANFORD, in their official capacities as the district attorneys general of Tennessee, STEVEN JOHN MULROY, in their official capacities as the district attorneys general of Tennessee and others
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, GARRETT CAUSEY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and SOUTHEASTERN SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
Dennis CarterIn re: Dennis Carter
as 26-1988
Respondent:
WARDEN CHRIS KING
Petitioner:
In re: DENNIS CARTER
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2026cv01017
Interested Party:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
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.
