Cases 61 - 70 of 74
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. US Department of Health
as 10-2204
Amicus Curiae:
EASTERN BANK, NATIONAL GRID USA, NATIONAL LEGAL FOUNDATION and others
Defendant / Appellant:
UNITED STATES (DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS), KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, THOMAS E. PRICE and others
Plaintiff / Appellee:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Intervenor:
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al
as 1:2010cv11455
Plaintiff:
Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. and Coalition For Buzzards Bay
Defendant:
Lisa P. Jackson, Curt Spalding, United States Environmental Protection Agency and others
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1319
US v. Vargas-Davila
as 10-1907
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
RAYMOND VARGAS-DAVILA, a/k/a Jackson
Alderson v. Jackson et al
as 1:2010cv10793
Plaintiff:
Bernard Alderson , Michael Fitzgerald , Maureen Estes and others
Defendant:
Lisa P. Jackson, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Laurie Burt and others
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1319
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2010cv10173
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Katz et al v. MRT Holdings, LLC et al
as 1:2010mc10022
Plaintiff:
Marvin A. Katz, Eloise Dabney, Ricky Tate and others
Defendant:
MRT Holdings, LLC, MRT LLC, James Clements and others
Receiver:
James D. Sallah
Mugisa v. Holder, Jr.
as 09-1727
Petitioner:
JACKSON MUGISA
Respondent:
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General
US v. Vargas-Davila
as 09-1303
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
RAYMOND VARGAS-DAVILA, a/k/a Jackson
US v. Vargas-Davila
as 09-1280
Appellee:
UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant:
RAYMOND VARGAS-DAVILA, a/k/a Jackson
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.
