Seventh Circuit Torts - Injury Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 750
Muhammad v. Central Intelligence Agency
as 1:2024cv05997
Defendant:
Central Intelligence Agency
Plaintiff:
Faraud K Muhammad
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
CAPUTO v. MENARDS INC.
as 1:2024cv01138
Defendant:
MENARDS INC.
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ANTHONY CAPUTO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Mitch Taebel v. State of Indiana, et al
as 24-2063
Plaintiff:
MITCH TAEBEL
Defendant:
STATE OF INDIANA, ERIC J. HOLCOMB, Governor and TODD ROKITA, Attorney General
COPENY v. INDIANAPOLIS POLICE et al
as 1:2024cv00924
Plaintiff:
GARY COPENY
Defendant:
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE, FLINT POLICE and JACKSONVILLE POLICE
Coleman-Thomas v. River Oaks Center, LLC et al
as 1:2024cv03984
Defendant:
Mason Asset Management, Inc., Namco Realty, LLC, CH Capital Group, LLC and others
Plaintiff:
Syrall Coleman-Thomas
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death
Eason v. Gill-Bloyer et al
as 1:2024cv03849
Defendant:
LFW Inc., Jason Gill-Bloyer, Rashoan Moseley and others
Plaintiff:
Mrs. Eason LaTonya
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
Martin v. BHC Streamwood Hospital
as 1:2024cv03219
Plaintiff:
Whitney Martin
Defendant:
BHC Streamwood Hospital
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question
TAEBEL v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2024cv00651
Plaintiff:
MITCH TAEBEL
Defendant:
STATE OF INDIANA, ERIC HOLCOMB and ROKITA
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 t Diversity-Torts
Yang et al v. DeRiggi
as 1:2024cv02734
Plaintiff:
Wang Pin Kuan Yang and The Wang Pin Kuan Yang Trust of Chicago
Defendant:
Louis DeRiggi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
Kubesh, Christopher v. InGensa, Inc.
as 3:2024cv00202
Plaintiff:
Christopher John Kubesh and Christopher Kubesh
Defendant:
InGensa, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
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.
