Cases 11 - 17 of 17
LENNON et al v. CITY OF CARMEL INDIANA et al
as 1:2015cv02072
Defendant:
JAMES BRAINARD, CARMEL CITY COUNCIL, CARMEL, INDIANA POLICE DEPARTMENT and others
Plaintiff:
LAWRENCE B. LENNON and ROBERT SANFORD
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
BECKETT v. HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. et al
as 1:2014cv01937
Plaintiff:
JAMES BECKETT
Defendant:
CARMEL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, PATRICK CLENNON and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
TRANCIK et al v. CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA et al
as 1:2012cv01264
Defendant:
JAMES BRAINARD, CITY OF CARMEL BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS and CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
Plaintiff:
JOANN TRANCIK and THOMAS TRANCIK
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA v. WAKLEY
as 1:2012cv00505
Counter Defendant:
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
Plaintiff:
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
Defendant:
VICTOR D. WAKLEY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
City of Carmel, Indiana v. Steel Supply & Engineering Com, et al
as 12-1301
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, by the CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Defendant - Appellant:
STEEL SUPPLY & ENGINEERING COMPANY and OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA v. STEEL SUPPLY & ENGINEERING CO. et al
as 1:2011cv00894
Plaintiff:
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
Counter Claimant:
OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY and STEEL SUPPLY & ENGINEERING CO.
Counter Defendant:
OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY and STEEL SUPPLY & ENGINEERING CO.
Defendant:
OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY and STEEL SUPPLY & ENGINEERING CO.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
REED et al v. TOWN OF FISHERS et al
as 1:2009cv01247
Plaintiff:
SANDRA REED, KENNETH REED and MICHAEL DOWNEY
Defendant:
TOWN OF FISHERS, DAN CLAASEN, THE CITY OF NOBLESVILLE and others
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.
