Cases 11 - 17 of 17
INDIANA PETROLEUM MARKETERS AND COVENIENCE STORE ASSOCIATION et al v. HUSKEY et al
as 1:2013cv00784
Defendant:
ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO COMMISSION, ALEX HUSKEY and STATE OF INDIANA
Plaintiff:
FREEDOM OIL, LLC, INDIANA PETROLEUM MARKETERS AND COVENIENCE STORE ASSOCIATION, STEVE E. NOE and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
NEAL et al v. THE STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2008cv01633
Plaintiff:
JOHN NEAL, JOHN NEAL, JOHN NEAL and others
Defendant:
THE STATE OF INDIANA, THE ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO COMMISSION, THE MADISON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF INDIANA, INC. et al v. INDIANA ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO COMMISSION et al
as 4:2008cv00204
Plaintiff:
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF INDIANA, INC., HARVEY R. CHAPLIN, WAYNE E. CHAPLIN and others
Defendant:
INDIANA ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO COMMISSION and DAVE HEATH
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
MUNCIE GAMES AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al v. THE STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 1:2008cv01538
Plaintiff:
MUNCIE GAMES AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MUNCIE GAMES AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC., VICKY MASSEY and others
Defendant:
THE STATE OF INDIANA, THE STATE OF INDIANA, THE ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO COMMISSION and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
ALEXANDER v. MADISON COUNTY (INDIANA) et al
as 1:2008cv01421
Plaintiff:
HELENA J. ALEXANDER
Defendant:
MADISON COUNTY (INDIANA), RODNEY J. CUMMINGS and INDIANA ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO COMMISSION
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2008cv01262
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
SCHNAUS v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 3:2007cv00165
Plaintiff:
CALE S. SCHNAUS
Defendant:
STATE OF INDIANA, INDIANA STATE EXCISE POLICE, INDIANA ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO COMMISSION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343 Violation of Civil Rights
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.
