123 results for 'court:"USDC Eastern District of Kentucky"'.
J. Van Tatenhove finds for an insured in this dispute because the insurer is currently providing a defense against claims contending the insured hurt someone in an assault. However, that case is ongoing and a ruling in this case would not resolve that issue; thus, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims contending the insurer is not liable for damages resulting from the personal injury case.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Van Tatenhove, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv81, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, Insurance, Jurisdiction
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Van Tatenhove finds in favor of the property owners regarding the jurisdiction of a property damages case. No parties were improperly added to the case, and because there is a reasonable question regarding the amount of damages, the state court is the proper venue for the case.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Van Tatenhove, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv247, NOS: Torts to Land - Real Property, Categories: Damages, Negligence, Jurisdiction
J. Bunning rules in part for school defendants in employment discrimination claims because the employee failed to demonstrate her due process rights were violated regarding the disciplinary hearing, and claims brought against the superintendent in his individual capacity must be dismissed because any action had been taken against the employee in the superintendent's official capacity. However, sex-based discrimination claims may continue because the employee demonstrated she may have been disciplined more harshly for being a woman.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Bunning, Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv93, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Due Process, Employment Discrimination
J. Stinnett finds for a medical practice in breach of employment contract claims, as while the medical practice made false statements regarding the contract, the employee was privy to contradictory information. However, other fraudulent misrepresentation and contract claims may continue because evidence remains in dispute as to whether fraud occurred while forming the contractual relationship.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Stinnett, Filed On: November 2, 2023, Case #: 5:21cv7, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Employment, Fraud, Contract