Cases 1 - 10 of 10
US, et al v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, et al
as 24-1092
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and others
Defendant:
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION and SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.
Interested Party:
BOEING CO., UNITED AIRLINES, INC., SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. and others
Amicus Curiae:
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Arcell, et al v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, et al
as 23-1897
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KATHERINE R. ARCELL, JOSE M. BRITO, JAN-MARIE BROWN and others
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY NIEBOR, GABRIEL GARAVANIAN and JUNE STANSBURY
Defendant / Appellee:
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION and SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.
Interested Party:
UNITED STATES, UNITED AIRLINES, INC., SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. and others
Byrne v. State of Maryland, et al
as 20-1568
Defendant:
JANET WOOD, Harford County Detention Center Staff, DR. ALI, State Managed Mental Health, PAM BAER, Custody Evalator, Mental Health Worker for Harford County and others
Defendant / Appellee:
STATE OF MARYLAND, ANTHONY MICHAEL DEYESU, HARTFORD, CT and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JODIE LOUISE BYRNE
Union of Concerned Scientists, et al v. EPA, et al
as 19-1383
Defendant / Appellee:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Interested Party:
UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE, MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS and ELIZABETH ANN SHEPPARD
Worman, et al v. Healey, et al
as 18-1545
Defendant:
MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE and CHARLES D. BAKER, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Amicus Curiae:
ROYCE BARONDES, GREATER BOSTON INTERFAITH ORGANIZATION, MASSACHUSETTS CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID SETH WORMAN, ANTHONY LINDEN, JASON WILLIAM SAWYER and others
Defendant / Appellee:
RICHARD D. MCKEON, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, MAURA T. HEALEY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, KERRY GILPIN, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police and others
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS ANDREW FELD
McGuire v. Millennium Laboratories of Cal, et al
as 17-1106
Plaintiff - Appellant:
MARK MCGUIRE
Plaintiff - Appellee:
RYAN UEHLING, ex rel, JOHN DOE, ESTATE OF ROBERT CUNNINGHAM and others
Plaintiff:
WENDY JOHNSON, ex rel, STATE OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF GEORGIA and others
Defendant:
HOWARD APPEL, JAMES SLATTERY, MILLENNIUM LABORATORIES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. and others
Nargol, et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al
as 16-1442
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES, ex rel, STATE OF ARKANSAS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA and others
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ANTONI NARGOL, Relator and DAVID LANGTON, Relator
Defendant - Appellee:
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., DEPUY, INC. and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
D'Agostino v. EV3, Inc., et al
as 16-1126
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JEFFREY D'AGOSTINO
Plaintiff:
STATE OF CA, STATE OF CT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and others
Defendant - Appellee:
EV3, INC. and MICROTHERAPEUTICS, INC.
Defendant:
JOHN CUBELIC, VITAS J. SIPELIS, JOHN HARDIN and others
Amicus Curiae:
UNITED STATES
Winkelman, et al v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al
as 15-1991
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MYRON WINKELMAN, Ex Rel, STEPHANI LEFLORE, Ex Rel and others
Plaintiff:
STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, CAREMARK RX, INC., CAREMARK PCS LLC and others
US, ex rel. D'Agostino v. ev3, Inc., et al
as 14-2145
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JEFFREY D'AGOSTINO
Plaintiff:
STATE OF CA, STATE OF CT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and others
Plaintiff - Interested Party:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellee:
EV3, INC., JOHN HARDIN, MICROTHERAPEUTICS, INC. and others
Defendant:
JOHN CUBELIC and VITAS J. SIPELIS
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.
