Cases 71 - 80 of 83
Rankins v. Keller et al
as 3:2010cv00297
Petitioner:
Michael Rankins
Respondent:
Alvin Keller, Jr. and Hatie B. Pingpong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rankins v. Keller et al
as 5:2010hc02112
Petitioner:
Michael Rankins
Respondent:
Alvin Keller and Tony Rand
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rankins v. Keller et al
as 5:2010hc02088
Petitioner:
Michael Rankins
Respondent:
Alvin Keller, Jr. and Hattie B. Pingpong
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Michael Rankins v. Donnie Stanley
as 10-6211
Appellant:
MICHAEL RANKINS
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH JOHN URBANIAK, JR., EDWARD ALLEN, SHAWN DERRICK BONNETT and others
Defendant - Appellee:
DONNIE STANLEY, Sgt., JOHN MEEKS, Capt., THOMAS TART, Lt. and others
Ealy v. Rice, et al
as 3:2009cv00100
Plaintiff:
Larry E. Ealy
Defendant:
Walter H. Rice, Michael R. Merz, Thomas Rose and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
United States of America v. Rankin
as 3:2008cv50277
Plaintiff:
United States of America
Defendant:
Michael Rankin
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Michael Rankins v. Robert Smith
as 08-7624
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MICHAEL RANKINS
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT SMITH and GLENN WILLIAMS
Kenneth Gammon v. Barbara LaWall, et al
as 08-16657
Plaintiff - Appellant:
KENNETH GAMMON
Defendant - Appellee:
BARBARA LAWALL, Pima County Attorney, PIMA COUNTY, JUDGE PEYTON, County of Pima and others
RANKINS v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK et al
as 3:2008cv01257
Petitioner:
Michael Rankins
Respondent:
The District Attorney of the County of York, The Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania and Raymond Sobina
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
RANKINS v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK et al
as 1:2008cv00169
Petitioner:
MICHAEL RANKINS
Respondent:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF YORK, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and RAYMOND SOBINA
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.
