Cases 41 - 50 of 52
Dunkle v. Newton-Embry
as 08-6276
Petitioner - Appellant:
LAURA L. DUNKLE
Respondent - Appellee:
MILLICENT NEWTON-EMBRY, Warden
Andrew v. Newton-Embry
as 5:2008cv00832
Petitioner:
Brenda Evers Andrew
Respondent:
Millicent Newton-Embry
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Dunkle v. Newton-Embry
as 5:2008cv00833
Petitioner:
Laura L Dunkle
Respondent:
Millicent Newton-Embry
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Auldridge v. Newton-Embry
as 6:2008cv00267
Petitioner:
Deanna Auldridge
Respondent:
Millicent Newton-Embry
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Henbest v. Newton-Embry
as 6:2007cv00432
Petitioner:
Dessie Henbest
Respondent:
Millicent Newton-Embry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Schoonover v. Embry, et al
as 07-5174
Petitioner - Appellant:
GILDA MARIE SCHOONOVER
Respondent - Appellee:
MILLICENT NEWTON EMBRY, Warden, Mabel Basset Correctional Facility and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, sued as: The State of Oklahoma, Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, Oklahoma
Whorton v. Newton-Embry
as 5:2007cv01012
Petitioner:
Anita Sue Whorton
Respondent:
Millicent Newton-Embry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Whorton v. Newton-Embry et al
as 5:2007cv00915
Petitioner:
Anita Sue Whorton
Respondent:
Millicent Newton-Embry, Justin Jones and Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Schoonover v. Embry et al
as 4:2007cv00283
Petitioner:
Gilda Marie Schoonover
Respondent:
Millicent Newton Embry and Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Britt v. Newton-Embry, et al
as 07-6058
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TYALEA CHANTRICE BRITT
Defendant - Appellee:
MILLICENT NEWTON-EMBRY
Defendant:
JUSTIN JONES
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.
