Cases 81 - 90 of 148
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv04176
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv00505
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act
Moore et al v. Flavor Restaurant, Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv01566
Plaintiff:
Ashley M Moore , Derrick L. Burns and DeMarcus Brydie
Defendant:
Flavor Restaurant, Inc., Rochelle Kemp and James Kemp
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Petty v. Kemp et al
as 3:2015cv00111
Plaintiff:
Marshall Petty
Defendant:
C/O Kemp, C/O Patterson, C/O Welsh and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Harris-Kemp v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al
as 1:2015cv00816
Plaintiff:
Katrina Harris-Kemp
Defendant:
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. , Bayer Pharma AG and Bayer OY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
KEMP et al v. COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
as 1:2014cv01728
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, DAVID LIEBEL and CHAPLAIN WALKER
Plaintiff:
LARRY KEMP and BRIAN WOODRING
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Miller v. Lawrence Correctional Center et al
as 3:2014cv01071
Plaintiff:
Patricia Miller
Defendant:
Lawrence Correctional Center, Marc Hodge, Unknown Assistant Warden of Programs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
IN RE: FAILURE TO COMPLY
as 1:2014mc00052
Respondent:
JONATHAN ROBERT ANDERSON, MAX WAYNE APPLE, JILL MICHELLE ARNOLD and others
In Re:
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS, NONPAYMENT OF ATTORNEY REGISTRATION FEES, AND/OR FAILURE TO SUBMIT IOLTA CERTIFICATION
Burke v. City Of Chicago et al
as 1:2014cv03565
Plaintiff:
Thomas Burke
Defendant:
City Of Chicago, Andrew Kemps and Brian Cahill
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
