Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Bortle v. Rodosky
as 1:2023cv00782
Petitioner:
Marcus Ray Bortle
Respondent:
Warden Rodosky
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv00558
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Rindahl, Randy v. Pristen, J. et al
as 4:2013cv04078
Plaintiff:
Randy Rindahl
Defendant:
J. Pristen, J. Smith, Unknown Agents and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Rindahl, Randy v. Pristen, J. et al
as 3:2013cv00313
Plaintiff:
Randy Rindahl
Defendant:
J. Pristen, J. Smith, Unknown Agents and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Miller v. Pacific Investment Management
as 13-1780
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Stephen A. Miller
Defendant - Appellee:
Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, PIMCO Funds, CME Group Inc. and others
Miller v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC et al
as 1:2012cv04122
Plaintiff:
Stephen A. Miller
Defendant:
Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, PIMCO Funds, CME GROUP INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Randy Rindahl v. Dennis Daugaard, et al
as 12-1701
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Randy Rindahl
Defendant - Appellee:
Dennis Daugaard, sued as Duagaard, Tim Reisch, D. Weber and others
Randy Rindahl v. Dennis Daugaard, et al
as 12-1505
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Randy Rindahl
Defendant - Appellee:
Dennis Daugaard, Governor, State of South Dakota, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Aaron McGowan, State Attorney, Minnehaha County and others
Rindahl, Randy v. Daugaard et al
as 4:2011cv04130
Plaintiff:
Randy Rindahl
Defendant:
Daugaard, Tim Reisch, D. Weber and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Rindahl v. Daugaard et al
as 4:2011cv04085
Plaintiff:
Randy Rindahl
Defendant:
Dennis Daugaard, Marty Jackley, Aaron McGowan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
