US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Cases 51 - 60 of 71,031
K.A. v. SHRIIJI, INC. d/b/a QUALITY INN & SUITES
as 1:2024cv00664
Plaintiff:
K.A., an individual
Defendant:
SHRIIJI, INC., dba QUALITY INN & SUITES
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1391 Personal Injury
JACKSON v. I.D.O.C et al
as 2:2024cv00128
Plaintiff:
WILLIAM CLAYTON JACKSON
Defendant:
I.D.O.C, FRANK VANIHEL and WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
VERONA HOLDINGS, INC. v. FRONTIER NORTH, INC.
as 1:2024cv00658
Plaintiff:
VERONA HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendant:
FRONTIER NORTH, INC.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00646
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
PANNELL v. SCHILDMEIR, ET AL
as 1:2024cv00654
Plaintiff:
DAVID PANNELL
Defendant:
RONALD SCHILDMEIR, AMANDA BRIDEGROOM and WENDY KNIGHT
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STEPHENS v. O'MALLEY
as 1:2024cv00661
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA S. STEPHENS
Defendant:
MARTIN J. O'MALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
HATTON v. WARDEN
as 1:2024cv00668
Petitioner:
TIMOTHY N. HATTON
Respondent:
WARDEN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RUTH-BRADLEY v. SIPICH et al
as 1:2024cv00666
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH JAMES RUTH-BRADLEY
Defendant:
CARRIE SIPICH, DERRIK HOBBS, FOSTER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
BERRY v. AKANDE et al
as 1:2024cv00667
Plaintiff:
MARQUESE BERRY
Defendant:
AKANDE, JAIL COMMANDER, ADEOJO and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
TRIANGLE EXPERIENCE GROUP, INC. v. MAX MINDS, LLC
as 1:2024cv00650
Plaintiff:
TRIANGLE EXPERIENCE GROUP, INC.
Defendant:
MAX MINDS, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
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.
