Sherry Katz-Crank v. Kimberly Haskett, et al
| SHERRY KATZ-CRANK, a Michigan resident |
| KIMBERLY HASKETT, individually and in her official capacity as an investigator for the Indiana Secretary of State, THOMAS TRATHEN, individually and as Chief Investigator for Marion County, Indiana, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA, CHARLIE WILLIAMS, individually and in his official capacity as an investigator for the indiana Secretaty of State and TODD ROKITA, individually and as former Secretary of State for Indiana |
| 15-1809 |
| April 15, 2015 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
702896757
Filed opinion of the court by Judge Sykes. AFFIRMED. Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge, concurring and dissenting; Kenneth F. Ripple, Circuit Judge and Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge. [6803197-1] [6803197] [15-1809]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Sherry Katz-Crank v. Kimberly Haskett, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellant: SHERRY KATZ-CRANK, a Michigan resident | |
| Represented By: | Derek S. Wilczynski |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellee: KIMBERLY HASKETT, individually and in her official capacity as an investigator for the Indiana Secretary of State | |
| Represented By: | David A. Arthur |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellee: THOMAS TRATHEN, individually and as Chief Investigator for Marion County, Indiana | |
| Represented By: | Amanda J. Dinges |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellee: MARION COUNTY, INDIANA | |
| Represented By: | Amanda J. Dinges |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellee: CHARLIE WILLIAMS, individually and in his official capacity as an investigator for the indiana Secretaty of State | |
| Represented By: | David A. Arthur |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellee: TODD ROKITA, individually and as former Secretary of State for Indiana | |
| Represented By: | David A. Arthur |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
