Search for:
clear search

Docket Number

Key Dates

Filing Date

Settlement / Judgment Date

Terminating Date

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Case Details

Outcome

Issues

MORE▾

Document Details

Document Filing Date

MORE▾

Document Citation (Choose One)

Use this for most court reporters

S.Ct. reporter and WL only

LEXIS and L.Ed. only

Search for:
128 cases, 664 documents
Ordered by
POLICING
CODING IN PROCESS
Samaha v. City of Minneapolis

0:20-cv-01715 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: Aug. 6, 2020

None
PRISON CONDITIONS
Ligons v. Minnesota Department of Corrections

0:15-cv-02210 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: May 1, 2015

Case Ongoing

On May 1, 2015, inmates of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MDOC) suffering from hepatitis-C filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs sued the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Centene Corporation, a provider of healthcare for inmates, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Article I § 8 of the Minnesota Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel,…
DISABILITY RIGHTS
CODING IN PROCESS
Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

0:16-cv-02623 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: Aug. 3, 2016

Case Ongoing

(This summary is temporary while we research the case.) This case is about the Minnesota Department of Human Services and its reliance on group homes for individuals with disabilities, making it difficult for individuals who wanted to live on their own to find housing.
ELECTION/VOTING RIGHTS
CODING IN PROCESS
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Walz

0:20-cv-01688 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: Aug. 4, 2020

Case Ongoing

NOTE: This case is being tracked in close to real time by the Stanford/MIT Healthy Elections Project. So for information, see their tracker. According to their summary as of 11/19/2020, Plaintiffs argue that the mask mandate in public places passed by Executive Order by the governor of Minnesota at the start of the pandemic conflicts with a Minnesota statute prohibiting the wearing of a mask in public. The plaintiffs argue that the prospect of being prosecuted either for wearing a mask or not …
POLICING
Garcia v. Metro Gang Strike Force

0:09-cv-01996 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: July 20, 2009

Case Ongoing

On July 20, 2009, individuals who claimed to be victims of unlawful force and violence at the hands of the Metro Gang Strike Force filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Strike Force and other law enforcement agencies and police officers in the Minneapolis area. The lawsuit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and Minnesota state law. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive…
JAIL CONDITIONS
John Does 1-100 v. Boyd

4:84-cv-00378 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: April 20, 1984

Four anonymous pretrial detainees brought a section 1983 action against the Dakota County Sheriff, complaining that the county jail's indiscriminate strip search policy was unconstitutional as applied to them and to similarly situated individuals, specifically pretrial detainees arrested for traffic offenses, regulatory offenses, bench warrants, and misdemeanors. On July 31, 1985, the District Court in Minnesota (Judge Harry MacLaughlin) granted plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against …
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
EEOC v. VENTURA FOODS LLC

0:05-cv-00663 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: March 31, 2005

Closed Date: Sept. 1, 2008

In March 2005, the Minneapolis District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Ventura Foods, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violatoin of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, discrimination on the basis of age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendant instituted and maintained a policy contained in its Severance Agreement and General Release requiring termi…
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
EEOC v. QUALITY PORK PROCESSORS, INC.

0:01-cv-00143 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: Jan. 25, 2001

Closed Date: April 1, 2007

The Milwaukee office of the EEOC brought this action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, against Quality Pork Processors, Inc. The complaint, filed in January 2001, alleged race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically that Defendant subjected the charging party to a racially hostile work environment and then retaliated against her when she complained about the harassment. In November 2001, Defendant moved for summary judgment…
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
EEOC v. Northwest Airlines

0:01-cv-00705 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: April 25, 2001

Closed Date: Jan. 13, 2007

The Milwaukee and Minneapolis offices of the EEOC brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota in April 2001. According to the consent decree, the defendant purportedly violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by applying an Absolute Zero or Zero Tolerance policy and not hiring individuals with insulin dependent diabetes or epilepsy requiring anti-seizure medication into certain positions.The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which…
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
EEOC v. MINNESOTA BEEF INDUSTRIES, INC.

0:02-cv-00810 | U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Filed Date: April 17, 2002

Closed Date: May 17, 2009

In April 2002, the Milwaukee District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Minnesota Beef Industries, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. We do not have a copy of the complaint. However, it appears from the consent decree that the complaint alleged that the defendant paid the charging party, a female employee, less than males for performing essentially the same functions and subjected her to a hostile work environment comprised of offensive comments, sexual …