Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Capen, et al v. Campbell
as 24-1061
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH R. CAPEN and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GUN RIGHTS
Defendant:
ANDREA J. CAMPBELL, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and CHARLES DUANE BAKER, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Interested Party:
BRADY, MARCH FOR OUR LIVES, GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE and others
Capen et al v. Healey et al
as 1:2022cv11431
Plaintiff:
Joseph R Capen and National Association for Gun Rights
Defendant:
Attorney General Maura Healey and Charles D. Baker
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
MCCARTHY et al v. BAKER et al
as 1:2020cv10701
Plaintiff:
TROY CITY TACTICAL LLC, LAURIE WARNER, WILLIAM R. BIEWENGA and others
Defendant:
CHARLES D. BAKER, MATTHEW SONNABEND, ROBERT F. RUFO and others
Amicus Curiae:
National Shooting Sports Foundation, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., GUN OWNERS ACTION LEAGUE, INC. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cedrone, LLC et al v. Baker et al
as 1:2020cv40041
Plaintiff:
Gun Owners of America, Brophy's Fine Firearms, Inc., Cedrone, LLC and others
Defendant:
Governor Charles Duane Baker, Jr and Attorney General Maura T. Healey
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Worman et al v. Baker et al
as 1:2017cv10107
Defendant:
Massachusetts State Police, Richard D. McKeon, Daniel Bennett and others
Plaintiff:
Gun Owner's Action League, Inc., Nicholas Andrew Feld, Overwatch Outpost and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Pullman Arms, Inc., et al v. Maura Healey, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
as 4:2016cv40136
Defendant:
Maura Healey, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Plaintiff:
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., Paper City Firearms, LLC, Pullman Arms, Inc and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
