Constitutionality of State Statutes Cases filed in the Fourth Circuit Courts
Cases 1 - 10 of 57
Northern Virginia Hemp v. Commonwealth of VA
as 23-2192
Plaintiff / Appellant: NORTHERN VIRGINIA HEMP AND AGRICULTURE, LLC, ROSE LANE and FRANNY'S OPERATIONS, INC.
Defendant / Appellee: THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, GLENN YOUNGKIN, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in his official capacity, JASON S. MIYARES, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, in his official capacity and others
Iyanna Anderson v. Seat Pleasant Police Department
as 23-1981
Plaintiff / Appellant: IYANNA ANDERSON
Defendant / Appellee: SEAT PLEASANT POLICE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF MARYLAND, Attorney General, LIEUTENANT HEYWARD, (0159) and others
Attkisson et al v. United States of America et al
as 1:2023cv01106
Defendant: Sharyl Thompson Attkisson and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Respondent: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, United States of America and Department of Justice
Petitioner: Sarah Judith Starr Attkisson
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 706 Judicial Review of Agency Action
Scott Sonda v. West Virginia Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
as 22-2271
Plaintiff / Appellee: SCOTT SONDA and BRIAN CORWIN
Defendant / Appellant: WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION VIA THE WEST VIRGINIA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, RANDALL M. ALBERT, HAROLD WARD, in his official capacity as member of the WV Oil & Gas Conservation Commission and others
Defendant: PATRICK MORRISEY, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of West Virginia
Rudolph Carey, III v. Nelson Smith
as 22-1908
Plaintiff / Appellant: RUDOLPH CAREY, III
Defendant / Appellee: NELSON SMITH, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
Anderson v. Seat Pleasant Police Department et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 8:2022cv01542
Plaintiff: Iyanna Anderson
Defendant: Seat Pleasant Police Department, State of Maryland, Heyward and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity Action
BA-PAKAL LUMA NATION v. STROUD et al. We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2022cv00390
Plaintiff: BA-PAKAL LUMA NATION and Black Feather and Coosa Nation, a sister Nation and Juridical Personality
Defendant: CHIEF TRAVIS STROUD, OFFICER DEVON WILLIAMSON, LIEUTENANT BRENT J. MACFARLAND and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Bishop of Charleston v. Marcia Adams
as 22-1175
Plaintiff / Appellant: BISHOP OF CHARLESTON, d/b/a Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston, a Corporation Sole and SOUTH CAROLINA INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, INC.
Defendant / Appellee: MARCIA ADAMS, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the South Carolina Department of Administration, BRIAN GAINES, in his official capacity as budget director for the South Carolina Department of Administration and HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, in his official capacity as Governor of South Carolina
Intervenor Defendant: ORANGEBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT and SOUTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP
Intervenor Defendant / Appellee: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Frederick Allen v. Roy Cooper, III
as 21-2040
Plaintiff / Appellee: FREDERICK L. ALLEN and NAUTILUS PRODUCTIONS, LLC
Defendant / Appellant: ROY A. COOPER, III, Governor of North Carolina, KEVIN CHERRY, Deputy Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, individually and in his official capacity, KARIN COCHRAN, Chief Deputy Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, individually and in her official capacity and others
Defendant: FRIENDS OF QUEEN ANNE'S REVENGE, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
Monroe Bypass Constructors v. NC Department of Transportation We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2020mc00105
Defendant: NC Department of Transportation
Petitioner: Monroe Bypass Constructors
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331

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.


Why Is My Information Online?