Cases 21 - 30 of 652
True the Vote, Inc. v. IRS, et al
as 23-5238
Plaintiff / Appellee:
True the Vote, Inc.
Defendant / Appellant:
Internal Revenue Service, United States of America, Steven T. Miller, In his official and Indivicual capacity as former Deputy Commissioner, Services & Enforcement, and Acting Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service and others
Interested Party:
Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc., Bopp Law Firm, PC and Foley and Lardner, LLP
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv03087
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0701 Judicial Review of Agency Decision
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02945
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
LAURENT MILLER v. EXPEDIA GROUP et al
as 1:2023cv02682
Plaintiff:
HELENE TONIQUE LAURENT MILLER
Defendant:
EXPEDIA GROUP, FONTIER AIRLINES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
IMC AMERICAS, INC. et al v. U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al
as 1:2023cv02668
Plaintiff:
IMC AMERICAS, INC. and GAURAV KUMAR
Not Classified By Court:
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UR JADDOU and LOREN K. MILLER
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
KALIL v. MAYORKAS et al
as 1:2023cv02657
Plaintiff:
JOHN S. KALIL
Defendant:
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, TROY A. MILLER and DAVID P. PEKOSKE
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0701 Judicial Review of Agency Decision
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2023cv02558
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Benjamin Woodhouse v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al
as 23-5188
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Benjamin Woodhouse, Mr.
Defendant / Appellee:
Meta Platforms Inc., Alphabet Inc., Nike Inc. and others
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.
