Cases 1 - 10 of 10
JONES v. WESTFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2023cv00964
Plaintiff:
RANDALL JONES and City of Westfield, Indiana
Defendant:
WESTFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, DAKOTA FOOTE, KAEDEN GEBHART and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv00843
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
CLERVRAIN et al v. DIMON et al
as 1:2021cv02918
Plaintiff:
MANETIONY CLERVRAIN, BRANDAKO, INC and ASHELEY CARMELLE DORSAINVILLE
Defendant:
JAMIE DIMON, ASHLEY BACON, LORI A. BEER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv00603
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
MEDMARC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CAMDEN AND MERIDEW, P.C. et al
as 1:2019cv04791
Defendant:
NASSIR HABIB, SCOTT C QUICK, SHAHID HUSSAIN and others
Plaintiff:
MEDMARC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
RIDDLE et al v. RYAN et al
as 1:2019cv01263
Plaintiff:
DAWN RIDDLE and MATT RIDDLE
Defendant:
SYED J KHAN, NICOLE M RYAN, RETA K BOWEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
MANN v. APKER
as 2:2013cv00346
Defendant:
CRAIG APKER, GARY L. HENDERSON, RYAN JOHNSON and others
Plaintiff:
BOBBY JOE MANN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
MANN et al v. BAILEY, et al.
as 2:2013cv00341
Defendant:
CRAIG APKER, BAILEY, BILILA and others
Plaintiff:
BOBBY JOE MANN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
THOMPSON v. CONANT et al
as 1:2012cv01177
Defendant:
DR. CONANT, CATHORINE KEEFER, QAISIN KHAN and others
Plaintiff:
ROGER THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SYED-KHAN v. DUPAGE BAR LEGAL AID SERVICE et al
as 3:2008mc00045
Plaintiff:
ERUM SYED-KHAN
Defendant:
DUPAGE BAR LEGAL AID SERVICE and NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY (THE)
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.
