Oklahoma Civil Rights Cases
Cases 71 - 80 of 9,239
Thomsen v. Armfield et al
as 5:2024cv00226
Plaintiff:
William C Thomsen
Defendant:
Cory Armfield and New Cordell City of
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00207
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00202
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 2601 Pursuant to the Family Leave Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00084
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00085
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Poindexter v. Haskell, Town of et al
as 6:2024cv00071
Plaintiff:
Cheryl Poindexter
Defendant:
Haskell, Town of, Steve Arrowood, Jessica Parks and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jolliff et al v. City of Catoosa, Oklahoma et al
as 4:2024cv00083
Plaintiff:
Kathryn Jolliff and Kyle Parnell
Defendant:
City of Catoosa, Oklahoma, Cody Workman, Robert Norman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2024cv00080
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2024cv00069
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Employment Discrimination Rehabilitation Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00200
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
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.
