Cases 1 - 10 of 15
MAXEY v. POTTER et al
as 1:2024cv00320
Plaintiff:
VANCE GERALD MAXEY
Defendant:
BRENT POTTER, DOYLE & FOUTTY, U S BANK N A and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doyle v. Indiana Packers et al
as 4:2022cv00099
Plaintiff:
Brandon C Doyle
Defendant:
Indiana Packers, Ruben Hernandez, JC Pratter and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
DOYLE v. SCHERSCHEL
as 1:2022cv01116
Plaintiff:
PATRICK EVAN DAVID DOYLE
Defendant:
JOSHUA K. SCHERSCHEL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
ATKINS v. SHARPE et al
as 1:2021cv00898
Defendant:
BEN ROGERS, TINA DOYLE, REBEKAH FARRINGTON and others
Plaintiff:
REBEKAH A. ATKINS
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Hixson et al v. Gottschalk et al
as 3:2017cv00166
Plaintiff:
Janet Pichon Hixson and Richard Hixson
Defendant:
Stephanie Gottschalk, Margery Justice, Ryan Jacobs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
STONE v. WRIGHT et al
as 2:2017cv00092
Defendant:
CITY OF CLINTON, INDIANA and DOYLE T. WRIGHT
Plaintiff:
HEATHER STONE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Doyle v. Concord Township, Elkhart County, Indiana, et al
as 3:2017cv00065
Plaintiff:
Kevin Doyle
Defendant:
Concord Township, Elkhart County, Indiana and Trustee, Concord Township, Elkhart County, Indiana
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2016cv03111
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Coleman v. Miersma et al
as 2:2015cv00459
Plaintiff:
Dale Evan Coleman
Defendant:
Aaron Miersma, David Cincoski, Brandon Kroft and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981
RILEY et al v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION et al
as 1:2015cv00212
Defendant:
BANK OF AMERICA, NA, DOYLE LEGAL CORPORATION, P.C. and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Plaintiff:
FRED RILEY
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.
