Cases 71 - 80 of 123
TAYLOR v. CITY OF RICHMOND et al
as 1:2016cv00604
Defendant:
CITY OF RICHMOND and JONATHAN HUTH
Plaintiff:
STEVE TAYLOR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
TAYLOR v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al
as 1:2016cv00198
Defendant:
ANTHONY BATH, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS and GENE B. GLICK COMPANY, INC.
Plaintiff:
JA'MILLE C TAYLOR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Taylor v. United States District Court
as 1:2015cv00382
Plaintiff:
Deante Tyrell Taylor
Defendant:
United States District Court
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Taylor v. United States District Court
as 1:2015cv00326
Plaintiff:
Deante Tyrell Taylor
Defendant:
United States District Court
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
REID v. IVY TECH COMMUNITY COLLEGE et al
as 1:2015cv01516
Defendant:
IVY TECH COMMUNITY COLLEGE and ERIKA TAYLOR
Plaintiff:
ROY STEVENSON REID
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
TAYLOR v. CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY
as 1:2015cv01392
Defendant:
CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY
Plaintiff:
WESLEY TAYLOR
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Taylor v. Allen County of et al
as 1:2015cv00130
Plaintiff:
Deante Taylor
Defendant:
Allen County of and Indiana State of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Martinez et al v County of Porter Indiana et al
as 2:2015cv00035
Plaintiff:
Carlos Martinez and Renee Martinez
Defendant:
County of Porter Indiana , Porter County Drug Task Force , Porter County Sheriff's Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Amos v. Taylor
as 1:2014cv00275
Plaintiff:
Ezekiel Amos
Defendant:
Clayton Taylor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG et al
as 4:2014cv00099
Defendant:
BILL BRUNNER, DENNIS CARR, CITY OF LAWRENCEBURG and others
Plaintiff:
FREDERICK JONES
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
