1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. JAMGOTCHIAN v. INDIANA HORSE RACING COMMISSION
 

JAMGOTCHIAN v. INDIANA HORSE RACING COMMISSION

Cause No. 1:16-cv-2344-WTL-TAB.

JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INDIANA HORSE RACING COMMISSION, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

September 20, 2017.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional - State Statute
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN, Plaintiff, represented by Barry D. Hunter , FROST BROWN TODD LLC, pro hac vice.

JERRY JAMGOTCHIAN, Plaintiff, represented by Medrith Lee Norman , BROWN TODD & HEYBURN PLLC, pro hac vice & Alan S. Brown , FROST BROWN TODD LLC.

ERIC REED, Plaintiff, represented by Barry D. Hunter , FROST BROWN TODD LLC, pro hac vice, Medrith Lee Norman , BROWN TODD & HEYBURN PLLC, pro hac vice & Alan S. Brown , FROST BROWN TODD LLC.

INDIANA HORSE RACING COMMISSION, Defendant, represented by David A. Arthur , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua Robert Lowry , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MIKE SMITH, Defendant, represented by David A. Arthur , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua Robert Lowry , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THOMAS WEATHERWAX, Defendant, represented by David A. Arthur , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua Robert Lowry , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

GREG SCHENKEL, Defendant, represented by David A. Arthur , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua Robert Lowry , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

STANLEY BOWKER, Defendant, represented by David A. Arthur , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua Robert Lowry , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

TIM DAY, Defendant, represented by David A. Arthur , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua Robert Lowry , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WILLIAM TROILO, Defendant, represented by David A. Arthur , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Joshua Robert Lowry , INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

ENTRY ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This cause is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 16, 32). The motions are fully briefed and the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the Plaintiffs' motion and DENIES the Defendants...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases