Cases 1 - 7 of 7
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
Cook v. Vazax Dining, LLC et al
as 7:2019cv00781
Plaintiff:
Eric Lamont Cook
Defendant:
Tom Wayne Noelke, Vazax Dining, LLC and Vazax Dining Two, L.L.C.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e
Burke v. Francis et al
as 1:2019cv01068
Plaintiff:
Sol-Damacus Burke
Defendant:
Eric A. Cooke, Toni M. Colvin and Richard L. Francis
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Moorish Science Temple of America et al v. State of Virginia et al
as 3:2017cv00669
Plaintiff:
Moorish Science Temple of America, Bobby Evans El, Leola Evans El and others
Defendant:
State of Virginia, Terry McCauliffe, Eric A. Cooke and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Moorish Science Temple of America et al v. State of Virginia et al
as 3:2017cv00206
Plaintiff:
Moorish Science Temple of America, Moorish Law Services, Bobby Evans EL and others
Defendant:
State of Virginia, Terry McCauliffe, Eric A. Cooke and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cooke v. Department of Corrections for the State of Maryland
as 1:2016cv03552
Plaintiff:
Eric Sebastian Cooke
Defendant:
Department of Corrections for the State of Maryland
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.
