Cases 21 - 30 of 217
Hill v. Northwest Indiana Major Crimes Task Force et al
as 2:2022cv00262
Plaintiff:
James Hill
Defendant:
Northwest Indiana Major Crimes Task Force, Town of Griffith, Indiana, City of Hammond and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv00254
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 626 Job Discrimination (Age)
Brooks v. Hammond City of et al
as 2:2022cv00224
Plaintiff:
Jullius Javonte Brooks
Defendant:
Hammond City of and Hammond Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Utility Service Co, Inc v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission et al
as 2:2022cv00204
Plaintiff:
Utility Service Co, Inc
Defendant:
Hammond Redevelopment Commission, City of Hammond, Hammond Water Works Department and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Clervrain v. Holcomb et al
as 3:2022cv00278
Plaintiff:
Manetirony Clervrain
Defendant:
Eric Holcomb, Suzanne Crouch, Holli Sullivan and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Hammond v. Doe et al
as 2:2022cv00002
Plaintiff:
Justin Hammond
Defendant:
P.O. John Doe 1-5 and John Doe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
WINDOM v. STAMPER et al
as 2:2022cv00004
Plaintiff:
AARON D. WINDOM
Defendant:
STAMPER, HAMMOND and ZATECKY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
ROSE v. ZATECKY et al
as 2:2022cv00005
Plaintiff:
ANTONIO ROSE
Defendant:
DUSHAN ZATECKY, ALSIP, STAMPER and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
STRONG v. HAMMOND
as 2:2021cv00477
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY STRONG
Defendant:
B. HAMMOND
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Ascension Providence et al v. Becerra
as 2:2021cv00369
Plaintiff:
ASCENSION PROVIDENCE, ASCENSION PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL-SOUTHFIELD CAMPUS, ASCENSION SAINT JOHN HOSPITAL and others
Defendant:
Xavier Becerra
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1395
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.
