State of Maryland, Department of the Environment v. United States Department of Commerce et al

Plaintiff: State of Maryland, Department of the Environment
Defendant: United States Department of Commerce and Gary Locke
Case Number: 1:2009cv01208
Filed: May 8, 2009
Court: Maryland District Court
Office: Baltimore Office
County: Baltimore City
Presiding Judge: Richard D Bennett
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Maryland District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: State of Maryland, Department of the Environment v. United States Department of Commerce et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: State of Maryland, Department of the Environment
Represented By: Adam Dean Snyder
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: United States Department of Commerce
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Gary Locke
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.