Cases 1 - 10 of 156
Ohio County Commission et al v. Express Scripts, Inc. et al
as 5:2024cv00142
Plaintiff:
Ohio County Commission, Brooke County Commission, Tyler County Commission and others
Defendant:
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., ESI Mail Order Processing, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
US v. Harold Spencer, III
as 23-4707
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
HAROLD EDWARD SPENCER, III
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
Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture, LLC et al v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al
as 1:2023cv01177
Plaintiff:
Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture, LLC, Rose Lane and Franny's Operations, Inc.
Defendant:
Commonwealth of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, Jason S. Miyares and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0554 Constitutionality of State Statutes
US v. James Bell
as 23-6420
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
JAMES SPENCER BELL
US v. Gary Albury
as 23-6031
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
GARY SPENCER ALBURY, a/k/a G
US v. Gary Albury
as 23-6032
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
GARY SPENCER ALBURY
Demarest v. Cheril
as 5:2022cv00188
Plaintiff:
Spencer Demarest
Defendant:
David Cheril
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
US v. Spencer Thorpe
as 22-4661
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
SPENCER JERMON THORPE, a/k/a Mone
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.
