Cases 1 - 10 of 596
Murphy v. State of Iowa
as 4:2024cv00140
Petitioner:
Larry Darnell Murphy
Respondent:
State of Iowa
Interested Party:
Aaron Rogers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Lumpkin
as 4:2024cv01262
Petitioner:
John Eldridge Murphy
Respondent:
Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Owens
as 1:2024cv00286
Petitioner:
Andrew Thurston Murphy
Respondent:
Craig D. Owens
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Lumpkin
as 5:2024cv00033
Petitioner:
Felix Murphy, III
Respondent:
Director of TDCJ Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Fred Murphy v. Mike Slagle
as 23-7303
Petitioner:
FRED MURPHY
Respondent:
MIKE SLAGLE, Warden and JOSHUA STEIN
Murphy v. State of Mississippi
as 1:2023cv00363
Plaintiff:
Matthew Thomas Murphy
Defendant:
John Doe and State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Cueto et al
as 5:2023cv01501
Petitioner:
David Preston Murphy
Respondent:
Edmundo Cueto and Bobby Lumpkin
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
MURPHY v. RIVELLO
as 2:2023cv03970
Petitioner:
AMEER MURPHY
Respondent:
JOHN RIVELLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR PHILA COUNTY, ATTORNEY GENERAL (OF ) PENNSYLVANIA and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Murphy v. Powell
as 23-4118
Petitioner / Appellant:
ANTHONY CHARLES MURPHY
Respondent / Appellee:
WARDEN ROBERT POWELL
Murphy v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Flagler County)
as 3:2023cv01012
Petitioner:
Clarence E. Murphy
Respondent:
Secretary, Department of Corrections
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.
