Cases 81 - 90 of 361
QUARLES v. KNIGHT
as 1:2017cv00470
Respondent:
STANLEY KNIGHT
Petitioner:
DAMON QUARLES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
QUARLES v. KNIGHT
as 1:2017cv00397
Respondent:
STANLEY KNIGHT
Miscellaneou:
PLAINFIELD CF (Court Use Only)
Petitioner:
DAMON QUARLES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
FRYE v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 2:2017cv00042
Defendant:
DR. MICHAEL ALUKER, Dr. BRYAN BULLER, CORIZON HEALTH, INC. and others
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY KIRK FRYE
Miscellaneou:
PUTNAMVILLE CF (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
COX v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2017cv00226
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM COX
Defendant:
GWEN HORTH, STANLEY KNIGHT, VIRGIL R. MADDEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
SHANNON v. KNIGHT
as 1:2017cv00138
Respondent:
STANLEY KNIGHT
Petitioner:
MARK A. SHANNON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SHANNON v. KNIGHT
as 1:2017cv00139
Respondent:
STANLEY KNIGHT
Petitioner:
MARK A. SHANNON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SHANNON v. KNIGHT
as 1:2017cv00099
Respondent:
STANLEY KNIGHT
Petitioner:
MARK A. SHANNON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
SHANNON v. KNIGHT
as 1:2017cv00079
Respondent:
STANLEY KNIGHT
Miscellaneou:
PLAINFIELD CF (Court Use Only)
Petitioner:
MARK A. SHANNON
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
VANCLEAVE v. KNIGHT
as 1:2017cv00040
Respondent:
STANLEY KNIGHT
Petitioner:
GREGORY VANCLEAVE
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
VANCLEAVE v. BUGHER et al
as 1:2017cv00039
Respondent:
ROBERT BUGHER, GAGNON, STANLEY KNIGHT and others
Petitioner:
GREGORY VANCLEAVE
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.
