Cases 11 - 20 of 54
Grand River Enterprises Six Na v. Pryor
as 11-1904
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Limited
Defendant - Appellee:
Troy King, Attorney General of the State of Alabama, and is sued herein solely in his official, representative capacity, Talis Colberg, Attorney General of the State of Alaska, and is sued herein solely, in his official, representative capacity, Terry Goddard, Attorney General of the State of Arizona, and is sued herein solely in his official, representative capacity and others
Soriano-Garcia v. McKune et al
as 5:2011cv03042
Petitioner:
Gilberto Soriano-Garcia
Respondent:
David McKune , Roger Werholtz and Stephen Six
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Reed v. Six, et al
as 10-3334
Petitioner - Appellant:
ROGER LEE REED
Respondent - Appellee:
STEPHEN SIX, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, BUREAU OF PRISONS, RONALD W. RIKER, Designation & Sentence Computation Center and others
Deal v. Goddard, et al
as 10-3324
Petitioner - Appellant:
TODD DEAL
Respondent - Appellee:
JOHNNIE GODDARD, Warden, Ellsworth Correctional Facility and STEPHEN SIX, Attorney General, State of Kansas
Pennington v. Six
as 5:2010cv03241
Petitioner:
Timothy Pennington
Respondent:
Stephen Six
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Gleason v. McKune et al
as 5:2010cv03200
Petitioner:
Noah J. Gleason
Respondent:
David R. McKune and Stephen Six
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Pabst v. McKune, et al
as 10-3256
Petitioner - Appellant:
TOD A. PABST
Respondent - Appellee:
DAVID MCKUNE, Warden, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility and STEPHEN SIX, Kansas Attorney General
McCormick v. Six
as 5:2010cv03168
Petitioner:
Dale E. McCormick
Respondent:
Stephen Six
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Sharp v. Rohling et al
as 5:2010cv03100
Petitioner:
Kimberly D. Sharp
Respondent:
Karen Rohling and Stephen Six
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
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.
