Cases 21 - 30 of 1,311
REEVES v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
as 1:2024cv00260
Plaintiff:
RICHARD REEVES
Defendant:
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, EMERSON, NEWMAN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv00223
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
SMITH v. ARMSTRONG et al
as 1:2024cv00213
Plaintiff:
STACY SMITH
Defendant:
LISA ARMSTRONG, OFFICER COUCH, MEGAN OLSEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
PARKER v. LEOHR et al
as 2:2024cv00029
Plaintiff:
JOSHUA PARKER
Defendant:
MATT LEOHR, A. MOSELEY and JANE DOE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
DOE et al v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY - BLOOMINGTON et al
as 1:2024cv00198
Plaintiff:
JOHN DOE and JANE DOE
Defendant:
INDIANA UNIVERSITY - BLOOMINGTON, LIBBY SPOTTS, GRETCHEN HANDLOS and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 dp Civil Rights - Denial of Due Process
WEATHERS v. FRANCIS et al
as 1:2024cv00116
Plaintiff:
RAYMOND L. WEATHERS, JR.
Defendant:
FRANCIS, JOHN DOE #1 and JOHN DOE #2
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
SIMS v. DENMEN et al
as 1:2024cv00101
Plaintiff:
JOHN SIMS
Defendant:
DENMEN, LEE, SHERRY DON and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ORR v. SNYDER et al
as 1:2023cv02320
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ORR
Defendant:
JERRY SNYDER, B. LALOUX, FRANK VANIHEL and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
ORR v. VANIHEL et al
as 1:2023cv02323
Plaintiff:
MICHAEL ORR
Defendant:
FRANK VANIHEL, JANE DOE, CHRISTINA REAGLE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
THOMAS v. KOHL'S, INC. et al
as 1:2023cv02312
Plaintiff:
ADRIAN THOMAS
Defendant:
KOHL'S, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment
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.
