Civil Rights Cases
Cases 11 - 20 of 44
Brown v. Blinken
as 22-2918
Plaintiff / Appellant: Kenneth Anderson Brown, a Moore benefiiciary, and Admiral, mariner, Merchant, Piloter and private people called Moor and subject, consul and Noble of the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire and Kenneth Anderson Brown, a Moore beneficiary, and Admiral, mariner, Merchant, Piloter and private people called Moor and subject, consul and Noble of the Al Maroc Shereefian Empire
Defendant / Appellee: Antony John Blinken, Secretary of State, United States, Janet Louise Yellen, Secretary of Treasury, United States, Heirs & Assignees, Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner, SSA, Heirs & Assignees and others
Brown v. Blinken et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2022cv09205
Plaintiff: Kenneth Anderson Brown
Defendant: Antony John Blinken, Janet Louise Yellen, Merrick Garland and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska v. Daniel Cameron, et al
as 22-5832
Plaintiff / Appellee: PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT NORTHWEST, HAWAII, ALASKA, INDIANA AND KENTUCKY, INC., on behalf of itself, its staff, and its patients
Intervenor / Appellee: EMW WOMEN'S SURGICAL CENTER, P.S.C. and ERNEST MARSHALL, M.D.
Defendant / Appellant: DANIEL J. CAMERON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
Defendant: ERIC FRIEDLANDER, in his official capacity as Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services, MICHAEL S. RODMAN, in his official capacity as Executive Director of Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure and THOMAS B. WINE, in his official capacity as Commonwealth's Attorney for the 30th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky
BARRETT v. BIDEN et al
as 1:2022cv02823
Plaintiff: JEFFREY P. BARRETT
Defendant: JOSEPH BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, BARACK OBAMA and others
Claimant: NANCY PELOSI
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2022cv01485
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Wolk v. City of Brooklyn Center, The et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 0:2022cv01666
Plaintiff: Sam Wolk
Defendant: City of Brooklyn Center, The, Tim Gannon, Tony Gruenig and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, et al v. Daniel Cameron, et al
as 22-5451
Plaintiff / Appellee: PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT NORTHWEST, HAWAII, ALASKA, INDIANA AND KENTUCKY, INC., on behalf of itself, its staff, and its patients
Defendant / Appellant: DANIEL J. CAMERON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky
Defendant: ERIC FRIEDLANDER, in his official capacity as Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services, MICHAEL S. RODMAN, in his official capacity as Executive Director of Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure and THOMAS B. WINE, in his official capacity as Commonwealth's Attorney for the 30th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky
Intervenor / Appellee: EMW WOMEN'S SURGICAL CENTER, P.S.C. and ERNEST MARSHALL, M.D.
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Cameron et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2022cv00198
Plaintiff: Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.
Defendant: Daniel Cameron, Eric Friedlander, Michael S. Rodman and others
Intervenor Plaintiff: EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C. and Ernest Marshall, M.D.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv05573
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
TRIPPETT v. PETRECCO We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2018cv04958
Plaintiff: TERRANCE FRANK TRIPPETT and ANDREA SESSOM
Defendant: ROSE RUTLEDGE, MICHAEL DEMARCO, CHARLES J. HOYT and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983

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?