Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 100
Dauscher v. Indiana State of et al
as 3:2026cv01311
Plaintiff: Joshua Dauscher
Defendant: STATE OF INDIANA, Indiana Department of Correction, WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, et al v. State of Missouri, et al
as 26-2030
Plaintiff: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MASSACHUSETTS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOTTE E. SCHARFMAN MEMORIAL EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES and others
Defendant: STATE OF MISSOURI, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OF FLORIDA and others
Petitioner: BRANDON MICHAEL HAYES, SOCIETY FOR RULE OF LAW INSTITUTE, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS and others
Interested Party: CENTER FOR ELECTION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH, CURRENT AND FORMER ELECTION OFFICIALS, WISCONSIN DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN and others
Type: Civil Rights Voting
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, et al v. Trump, et al
as 26-2029
Plaintiff: LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MASSACHUSETTS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LOTTE E. SCHARFMAN MEMORIAL EDUCATION FUND, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES and others
Defendant: DONALD J. TRUMP, in the official capacity as President of the United States, US POSTAL SERVICE, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and others
Petitioner: BRANDON MICHAEL HAYES, SOCIETY FOR RULE OF LAW INSTITUTE, NATIONAL SECURITY LEADERS FOR AMERICA and others
Interested Party: CENTER FOR ELECTION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH, CURRENT AND FORMER ELECTION OFFICIALS, WISCONSIN DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN and others
Type: Civil Rights Voting
State of California, et al v. State of Missouri, et al
as 26-2032
Plaintiff: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF NEVADA and others
Defendant: STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE OF INDIANA and others
Petitioner: SOCIETY FOR RULE OF LAW INSTITUTE, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, SECURE FAMILIES INITIATIVE and others
Type: Civil Rights Voting
State of California, et al v. USPS, et al
as 26-2031
Plaintiff: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF NEVADA and others
Defendant: US POSTAL SERVICE, DAVID STEINER, in the official capacity as Postmaster General, Chief Executive Officer of the Postal Service, and Member of the Postal Service Board of Governors, DOUGLAS TULINO, in the official capacity as Deputy Postmaster General, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Human Resources Officer of the Postal Service and Member of the Postal Service Board of Governors and others
Petitioner: SOCIETY FOR RULE OF LAW INSTITUTE, LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, SECURE FAMILIES INITIATIVE and others
Type: Civil Rights Voting
State of Indiana et al v. Town Council of the Town of Merrillville, Indiana
as 2:2026cv00390
Plaintiff: State of Indiana ex rel. Todd Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana
Defendant: Town Council of the Town of Merrillville, Indiana
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
THOMAS v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
as 2:2026cv00599
Plaintiff: GOD/SYLVESTER THOMAS, JR.
Defendant: STATE OF INDIANA, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Todd Rokita
as 26-2811
Plaintiff: EXODUS REFUGEE IMMIGRATION, INC.
Defendant: TODD ROKITA, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Indiana
Bradley v. Indiana Department of Child Services et al
as 3:2026cv01281
Plaintiff: Donald Bradley
Defendant: Indiana Department of Child Services an agency of the State of Indiana doing business as Indiana State of, Bradley Samuel and Nicole Snyder
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Amazon.com Inc We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2026cv03097
Plaintiff: Federal Trade Commission, State of Alaska, State of Arizona and others
Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045 Federal Trade Commission 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.


Why Is My Information Online?