Cases 31 - 40 of 41
State of Nebraska, et al v. US Dept. of HHS, et al
as 12-3238
Plaintiff - Appellant:
State of Nebraska, by and through, Jon C. Bruning, Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, State of South Carolina, by and through, Alan Wilson, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, State of Texas, by and through, Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas and others
Defendant - Appellee:
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Treasury and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2012cv01637
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Gibson v. State of Missouri et al
as 4:2012cv00558
Plaintiff:
Matthew Lawrence Gibson
Defendant:
State of Missouri, State of Alabama, State of Arizona and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DeCoteau v. District Court, 85th Judicial District, Brazos County, State of Texas et al
as 4:2012cv00030
Petitioner:
Tyrell DeCoteau
Respondent:
District Court, 85th Judicial District, Brazos County, State of Texas and Francyne DeCoteau
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
State of Nebraska et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al
as 4:2012cv03035
Plaintiff:
Sister Mary Catherine, CK, Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America, Catholic Social Services and others
Defendant:
Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Frank Carter v. Missouri Board of Probation, et al
as 11-2107
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Frank Dwight Carter
Defendant - Appellee:
Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, State of Missouri, Department of Correction, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, State of Texas, Laura Birmingham, Parole Officer, State of Missouri and others
Scott et al v. State of Texas et al
as 4:2010cv02086
Plaintiff:
Lavonda D. Scott, Candies Trice and Darion McMiller
Defendant:
State of Texas and Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sun Minnesota Foreign Holdings, et al v. MN Airline Holdings, Inc.
as 10-6071
Debtor:
In re: MN Airline Holdings, Inc.
Objector - Appellant:
Sun Minnesota Foreign Holdings, LLC, Sun Minnesota Domestic Holdings, LLC and Sun Credit, LLC
Debtor - Appellee:
MN Airline Holdings, Inc.
Claimant - Appellee:
Petters Aviation, LLC, Petters Aircraft Leasing, LLC and Douglas Arthur Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Group Worldwide, LLC and Petters Company, Inc. and as the court-appointed Receiver for Thomas J. Petters and Thomas Petters, Inc.
Creditor - Appellee:
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, of MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country
Interested Party - Appellee:
County of Riverside, California, United States of America and Tarrant County, a political subdivision of the States of Texas and Tennessee
Sun Minnesota Foreign Holdings, et al v. MN Airline
as 10-6070
Debtor:
In re: MN Airlines, LLC, doing business as Sun Country Airlines
Objector - Appellant:
Sun Minnesota Foreign Holdings, LLC, Sun Minnesota Domestic Holdings, LLC and Sun Credit, LLC
Debtor - Appellee:
MN Airlines, LLC
Claimant - Appellee:
Petters Aviation, LLC, Petters Aircraft Leasing, LLC and Douglas Arthur Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Group Worldwide, LLC and Petters Company, Inc. and as the court-appointed Receiver for Thomas J. Petters and Thomas Petters, Inc.
Creditor - Appellee:
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, of MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country
Interested Party - Appellee:
County of Riverside, California, United States of America and Tarrant County, a political subdivision of the States of Texas and Tennessee
Hauersperger v. Michel et al
as 4:2008cv00412
Petitioner:
Edward K Hauersperger
Respondent:
Michel and State of Texas
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
