Cases 1 - 10 of 19
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00099
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 117 Americans with Disabilites Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2023cv00093
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Florance v. Barnett et al
as 3:2022cv00399
Plaintiff:
Charles W Florance, III and Charles W Florance
Defendant:
Carol C Barnett, Jose R Espada, Thomas M Everett and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
FLOWERS et al v. BELL et al
as 1:2021cv01812
Plaintiff:
JACOB ALLEN FLOWERS and ALICE MARIE FLOWERS
Defendant:
OLIVIA PRATT, JANE DOES TO BE NAMED, JOHN DOES TO BE NAMED and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2018cv02929
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Reed v. Indiana Department of Corrections et al
as 2:2016cv00112
Plaintiff:
David Reed
Defendant:
Indiana Department of Corrections, Corizon LLC , Andrew Liaw MD and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
WADSACK v. DAYDREAMS HOSPITALITY, LLC
as 4:2016cv00011
Defendant:
DAYDREAMS HOSPITALITY, LLC
Plaintiff:
ALICE WADSACK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2015cv01724
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
HOENIGMAN et al v. PENCE et al.
as 1:2014cv01426
Defendant:
MICHAEL ALLEY, MICHAEL PENCE and GREGORY ZOELLER
Plaintiff:
JUSTIN R. BRETZ, KENDREL L COOPER, JUAN F. DELEON GARCIA and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2014cv00255
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
