Cases 1 - 10 of 73
Kifor v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al
as 24-1075
Plaintiff:
IMRE KIFOR
Defendant:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, MIDDLESEX PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT and others
In Re: Fishman
as 24-1047
Petitioner:
DEBORAH FISHMAN
Respondent:
MASSACHUSETTS PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT, HONORABLE JUDGE CHRISTINE ANTHONY, in her official capacity, UNITED STATES and others
Carr v. Carr, et al
as 23-8034
Petitioner:
DANIEL E. CARR
Respondent:
RAKHI CARR, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Taunton, MA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, New Bedford and others
US v. Scamaroni-Cintron
as 23-1152
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant / Appellant:
MARTIN SCAMARONI-CINTRON
Interested Party:
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and others
In Re:Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
as 23-1088
Petitioner:
REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Respondent:
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF HARVARD COLLEGE and others
Interested Party:
BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, and 36 other Higher Education Organizations, MICHAEL P. KEANE and others
Kifor v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al
as 23-1008
Plaintiff / Appellant:
IMRE KIFOR, individually and behalf of all other similarly situated and IMRE KIFOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MIDDLESEX PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT, MA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION and others
Packard v. Dunphy, et al
as 22-1078
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID A. PACKARD
Defendant / Appellee:
SEAN M. DUNPHY, former Chief Justice and his successors in office Massachusetts Probate and Family Court Department, JOHN D. CASEY, Chief Justice Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, PAMELA CASEY O'BRIEN, Register of Probate and her successors in office Massachusetts Probate and Family Court Department, Essex Division and others
Defendant:
WILL FULLER, President and CEO and his successor in office Transamerica Corporation and MARK PEARSON, President and CEO and his successor in office Equitable Holdings, Inc.
Markham Concepts, Inc., et al v. Hasbro, Inc.
as 21-1957
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MARKHAM CONCEPTS, INC., LORRAINE MARKHAM, individually and in her capacity as trustee of the Bill and Lorraine Markham Exemption Trust and the Lorraine Markham Family Trust and SUSAN GARRETSON
Defendant / Appellant:
HASBRO, INC.
Defendant:
REUBEN KLAMER, DAWN LINKLETTER GRIFFIN, SHARON LINKLETTER and others
Interested Party:
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, LOUIS MARK SOLOMON and MICHAEL S. LAZAROFF
Markham Concepts, Inc., et al v. Klamer
as 21-1958
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MARKHAM CONCEPTS, INC., LORRAINE MARKHAM, individually and in her capacity as trustee of the Bill and Lorraine Markham Exemption Trust and the Lorraine Markham Family Trust and SUSAN GARRETSON
Defendant:
HASBRO, INC., DAWN LINKLETTER GRIFFIN, SHARON LINKLETTER and others
Defendant / Appellant:
REUBEN KLAMER
Interested Party:
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, LOUIS MARK SOLOMON and MICHAEL S. LAZAROFF
District 4 Lodge of the International Association, et al v. Raimondo, et al
as 21-1873
Plaintiff / Appellee:
DISTRICT 4 LODGE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS LOCAL LODGE 207, f/k/a IAMAW Maine Lobstering Union Local 207, DAMON FAMILY LOBSTER COMPANY, INC., FOX ISLAND LOBSTER COMPANY, LLC and others
Defendant / Appellant:
GINA M. RAIMONDO, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Commerce, JANET COIT, in her official capacity as Assistant Administrator, NOAA Fisheries and NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Interested Party:
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, INC. and DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Petitioner:
MAINE LOBSTERMEN'S ASSOCIATION and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF MAINE
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.
