Cases 1 - 10 of 17
MACLIN et al v. RILEY et al
as 1:2023cv01776
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY MACLIN and VICKIE DRIVER
Defendant:
LUCAS RILEY, ALEXANDER GREGORY, CARL CHANDLER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02442
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
BAILEY v. YOUNG et al
as 1:2021cv02517
Plaintiff:
ROBERT L. BAILEY, JR.
Defendant:
R. YOUNG, CHANDLER and PIKE TOWNSHIP AMBULANCE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BAILEY v. YOUNG et al
as 2:2021cv00268
Plaintiff:
ROBERT L. BAILEY, JR.
Defendant:
R. YOUNG, CHANDLER and PIKE TOWNSHIP AMBULANCE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BAILEY v. INDIANAPOLIS SHERIFF TRANSPORT et al
as 1:2021cv01005
Defendant:
CHANDLER, PIKE TOWNSHIP AMBULANCE, INDIANAPOLIS SHERIFF TRANSPORT and others
Plaintiff:
ROBERT LEE BAILEY, JR.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BORONDY et al v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA et al
as 1:2020cv02158
Defendant:
LAWRENCE CRESS, NICHOLAS DRAHER, JUSTIN BAKER and others
Plaintiff:
MORAIMA VELEZ-SHARKEY and MARIAN T. BORONDY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BEACH v. CITY OF CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2019cv04607
Defendant:
CITY OF CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT, ADAM THEIS and CITY OF CARMEL
Plaintiff:
CHANDLER TWO HUNTER BEACH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2019cv00166
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
DEBOARD et al v. WARRICK TRAIL APARTMENTS, LLC et al
as 3:2019cv00131
Defendant:
Warrick Trail Apartments, LLC and CHANDLER REAL ESTATE, INC.
Plaintiff:
Chandler Real Estate, LLC and DAVID DEBOARD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2018cv00733
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 451
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.
