Cases 1 - 10 of 12
More v. Mayo Clinic et al
as 2:2024cv00452
Plaintiff:
Pamela D More and Pamela Diane More
Defendant:
Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Hospital and Rachel Lindor
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2022cv02376
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2022cv02172
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2022cv02058
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 re Job Discrimination (Religion)
Krasne v. Mayo Clinic, The et al
as 0:2021cv00746
Defendant:
Mayo Clinic Hospital - Rochester, The formerly doing business as Saint Marys Hospital of Rochester, Minnesota, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Drive Medical, Inc. and others
Plaintiff:
Ira Mark Krasne
Hobbs v. Santiago et al
as 2:2020cv00787
Defendant:
Michael Santiago and Mayo Clinic Hospital
Plaintiff:
Richard Paul Hobbs
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Weighill et al v. Mayo Clinic Health System et al
as 0:2019cv02598
Defendant:
Mano Clinic Heatth System, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Dr's & Nurses Staff and others
Plaintiff:
Carolina C. Weighill and Daniel James Weighill
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Bennet v. Mayo Clinic et al
as 0:2019cv01639
Plaintiff:
John Bennet
Defendant:
Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Hospital - Rochester and Does 1-10
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 0:2015cv03710
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Carey v. Mayo Clinic Hospital - Rochester et al
as 0:2013cv03207
Defendant:
Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic Hospital - Rochester
Plaintiff:
Jane P. Carey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
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.
