US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Cases 1 - 10 of 73,559
Hill et al
as 3:2025cv00009
Plaintiff:
Jeremy Hill and EVANSVILLE WESTERN RAILWAY, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Reynolds
as 1:2025cv00121
Plaintiff:
Robert Reynolds
Defendant:
Navilyst Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury
Symons v. Board of County Commissioners of Tipton County et al
as 1:2025cv00109
Plaintiff:
Christopher Symons
Defendant:
Board of County Commissioners of Tipton County, TIPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Matthew Tebbe and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
COX v. FRIENDS QUAKERS SOCIETY et al
as 1:2025cv00120
Plaintiff:
WELBY THOMAS COX, JR.
Defendant:
FRIENDS QUAKERS SOCIETY, FIRST FRIENDS QUACKER CHURCH and TRAVIS
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2025cv00010
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 626 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv00111
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv00110
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv00115
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2025cv00118
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
NAPIER v. WARDEN
as 1:2025cv00117
Petitioner:
JESSE EARL NAPIER
Respondent:
WARDEN
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.
