US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky Civil Rights Cases
Cases 31 - 40 of 2,798
Huntley v. Child Support Enforcement
as 5:2024cv00046
Plaintiff:
Edwin Huntley
Respondent:
Child Support Enforcement
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 7:2024cv00014
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2024cv00009
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal
Knox v. Lexington Police Department
as 5:2024cv00037
Plaintiff:
Abner J. Knox
Respondent:
Lexington Police Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00033
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2024cv00014
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 20 U.S.C. § 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child
Jipson et al v. Workman et al
as 5:2024cv00026
Plaintiff:
Hillary Jipson and Elijah Reeves
Defendant:
Robert Workman and Montgomery County Sheriff Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act
Workman et al v. Kelly et al
as 2:2024cv00017
Plaintiff:
Scott Workman and Scott's Garage, LLC
Defendant:
Joshua L. Kelly, Matthew Hutti, Eric Walker and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Farrow v. Vanceburg
as 0:2024cv00013
Plaintiff:
Janet Farrow
Defendant:
City of Vanceburg
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 5:2024cv00019
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
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.
