Cases 61 - 70 of 349
State of Louisiana v. Becerra
as 22-30748
Plaintiff / Appellee:
State of Louisiana, State of Alabama, State of Alaska and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families and others
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al
as 2:2022cv00223
Plaintiff:
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American College of Pediatricians and others
Defendant:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Robert M. Califf, M.D., Janet Woodcock, M.D. and others
Intervenor Defendant:
Danco Laboratories, LLC and Danco Laboratories LLC
Amicus Curiae:
The Chattanooga National Memorial for the Unborn, Doctors for America, American Center for Law and Justice and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Vapor Train 2 LLC et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al
as 6:2022cv00429
Plaintiff:
Vapor Train 2 LLC and Magellan Technology, Inc.
Defendant:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Robert M. Califf, M.D., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Informed Consent Action Network v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention et al
as 1:2022cv01130
Plaintiff:
Informed Consent Action Network
Defendant:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information Act
State of Texas v. Becerra
as 22-11037
Plaintiff / Appellee:
State of Texas, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and Christian Medical & Dental Associations
Defendant / Appellant:
Xavier Becerra, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and others
Lifenet, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al
as 6:2022cv00373
Plaintiff:
Lifenet, Inc.
Defendant:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, U.S. Department of the Treasury and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Texas Medical Association et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al
as 6:2022cv00372
Plaintiff:
Texas Medical Association, Tyler Regional Hospital, LLC and Dr. Adam Corley
Defendant:
United States Department of Health and Human Services, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY and others
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Lifenet, Inc. and East Texas Air One
Consolidated Defendant:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Department of Labor and others
Amicus Curiae:
Physicians Advocacy Institute, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Brown et al v. U S Dept of Health & Human Services et al
as 6:2022cv05190
Defendant:
US Department of Health and Human Services, Trinity Health Centers of Louisiana and U S Dept of Health & Human Services
Claimant:
Patsy Brown, Kristy Brown and April Paul
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2671 Federal Tort Claims Act
State of Texas v. Becerra et al
as 5:2022cv00185
Plaintiff:
State of Texas, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists and Christian Medical & Dental Associations
Defendant:
Xavier Becerra, US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and others
Amicus Curiae:
New York State, California State of, Colorado and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
Parks v. U.S. Department of State et al
as 1:2022cv00650
Plaintiff:
Devon Parks
Defendant:
U.S. Department of State, Antony J. Blinken, Philip S. Goldberg and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1383 Review of HHS Decision
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.
