Cases 1 - 10 of 64
MUDD et al v. WISEMAN et al
as 4:2024cv00123
Plaintiff:
THOMAS VAN WINKLE, GARY CUNNINGHAM and JOHN DAVID MUDD
Defendant:
DAVID WEINBRENNER, CRAWFORD COUNTY, INDIANA, NATHAN WISEMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Means v. Pegan et al
as 1:2024cv00374
Plaintiff:
Robert Means
Defendant:
Brandon Cox, CITY OF KENDALLVILLE, INDIANA, Kevin Pegan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
NEWBERRY v. PITTSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2024cv01519
Plaintiff:
BRANDON NEWBERRY
Defendant:
PITTSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT, NICHOLAS GALLICO and CHASE FENNELL
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Kamanda v. Chase Bank
as 3:2024cv00660
Plaintiff:
Yumba Kamanda
Defendant:
Chase Bank
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Chase v St. Joe Company et al
as 2:2024cv00205
Plaintiff:
Linda C Chase
Defendant:
Mary Matos-Weathers, Carmen Worley and St Joe Company/SJSA LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Fair Housing Act
Chase v. Arbor Properties Development Inc et al
as 2:2024cv00206
Plaintiff:
Linda C Chase
Defendant:
Jill Hewitt, Gordon Thames and Arbor Properties Development Inc
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Fair Housing Act
BOGGS v. HOLMES et al
as 1:2024cv00784
Plaintiff:
MATTHEW BOGGS
Defendant:
CHASE HOLMES, JASON MYERS, TRAVIS KEMPTON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv00142
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00410
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Caldwell v. Raster
as 3:2023cv00869
Plaintiff:
Chase Caldwell
Defendant:
Robert T Raster
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.
