Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Watson v. USD 500, et al
as 21-3057
Defendant / Appellee:
USD 500, KANSAS CITY, KANSAS
Defendant:
ANITA ROCHA, Assistant Director of Transportation, LENORA MILLER, Executive Director of Operations, SANDY KIPER, Secretary of Transportation and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CARMEN NAOMI WATSON
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2021cv02059
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv02631
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2020cv02616
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Watson v. USD 500, et al
as 19-3159
Defendant / Appellee:
ANITA ROCHA, Assistant Director of Transportation, SANDY KIPER, Secretary of Transportation, MIGUEL MARTIN, Director of Transportation and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CARMEN N. WATSON
Watson v. USD 500, et al
as 19-3152
Defendant / Appellee:
ANITA ROCHA, Assistant Director of Transportation, SANDY KIPER, Secretary of Transportation, MIGUEL MARTIN, Director of Transportation and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CARMEN N. WATSON
Watson v. USD 500, et al
as 19-3151
Defendant / Appellee:
ANITA ROCHA, Assistant Director of Transportation, SANDY KIPER, Secretary of Transportation, MIGUEL MARTIN, Director of Transportation and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CARMEN N. WATSON
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv02344
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 6:2019cv01044
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2016cv02578
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000
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.
