Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Tessema v. Department of Homeland Security et al
as 4:2021cv00390
Plaintiff:
Ezra Tessema
Defendant:
Department of Homeland Security, EPA and Department of Transportation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ronald Douglas v. Eric Schmitt, et al
as 19-3700
Defendant / Appellee:
Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security & Empls of the Social Admin, Janet L. Schanzle, Security Armored Car & It's Insurers, Elaine L. Chao, U. S. Secretary of Transportation & Employees of the Federal Aviation Admin and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Ronald Douglas
City of Kennett, MO v. EPA, et al
as 17-1713
Plaintiff - Appellant:
City of Kennett, Missouri
Defendant - Appellee:
Environmental Protection Agency and Karl Brooks, in his official capacity as Regional Administrator of EPA Region 7
National Parks Conservation, et al v. Northern States Power Company
as 13-2613
Plaintiff - Appellee:
National Parks Conservation Association, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Friends of the Boundary Waters and others
Defendant:
United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa P. Jackson, in her official capacity as EPA Administrator
Movant - Appellant:
Northern States Power Company Minnesota, doing business as Xcel Energy
Billy Tyler v. EPA
as 13-2516
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Billy Tyler, on behalf of himself, his grandchildren, and all similarly situated.
Defendant - Appellee:
EPA
Tyler v. EPA
as 4:2013cv03119
Defendant:
EPA
Plaintiff:
Billy Tyler
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Billy Tyler v. EPA
as 13-1979
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Billy Tyler, on behalf of himself, his grandchildren, and all similarly situated.
Defendant - Appellee:
EPA
Tyler v. EPA
as 8:2012cv00388
Defendant:
EPA
Plaintiff:
Billy Tyler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Tyler v. EPA
as 4:2012cv03191
Defendant:
EPA
Plaintiff:
Billy Tyler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
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.
