Cases 61 - 70 of 81
Cheadle v. Dinwiddie et al
as 5:2007cv01340
Petitioner:
Rodney Eugene Cheadle
Respondent:
Walter Dinwiddie and Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Thornton v. Dinwiddie et al

as 5:2007cv01321
Petitioner:
Ricky Bernard Thornton
Respondent:
Walter Dinwiddie and Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mosley v. Dinwiddie

as 07-6245
Petitioner - Appellant:
CALVIN MOSLEY, JR.
Respondent - Appellee:
WALTER DINWIDDIE, Warden
Mallett v. Dinwiddie et al
as 5:2007cv01078
Petitioner:
Robert Mallett, II
Respondent:
Walter Dinwiddie and Drew Edmondson
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Durbin v. Dinwiddie

as 6:2007cv00262
Petitioner:
Frederick Lee Durbin
Respondent:
Walter Dinwiddie
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Cheadle v. Dinwiddie

as 5:2007cv00939
Petitioner:
Darryl A Cheadle
Respondent:
Walter Dinwiddie
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Mars v. Dinwiddie et al
as 5:2007cv00854
Petitioner:
James Russell Mars
Respondent:
Walter Dinwiddie and Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Harris v. Dinwiddie

as 4:2007cv00412
Petitioner:
Chad Nathan Harris
Respondent:
Walter Dinwiddie
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Lovelace v Dinwiddie

as 6:2007cv00224
Plaintiff:
James William Lovelace
Defendant:
Walter Dinwiddie
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Powers v. Dinwiddie et al

as 5:2007cv00661
Petitioner:
Bobby Otto Powers
Respondent:
Walter Dinwiddie and Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
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.