Cases 41 - 50 of 51
State of Missouri, et al v. Kamala Harris, et al
as 14-17111
Plaintiff - Appellant:
STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. Chris Koster, Attorney General, STATE OF NEBRASKA, ex rel. Jon Bruning, Attorney General, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General and others
Defendant - Appellee:
KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California and KAREN ROSS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture
Intervenor-Defendant - Appellee:
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES and ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA EGG FARMERS
Amicus Curiae:
STATE OF UTAH, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND and others
IN RE STEC, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
as 8:2009cv01304
Plaintiff:
Fred Jean, Keith Johnson, The Port Authority of Allegheny County Retirement and Disability Allowance Plan for Employees Represented by Local 85 of the Amalgamated Transit Union and others
Consolidated Plaintiff:
Jonathan Fischer, Arman Rashtchi, Keith A Ovitt and others
Petitioner:
The Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust, Building Trades United Pension Pension Trust Fund and Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103 I.B.E.W., STEC, Inc. Investor Group and others
Defendant:
Stec Inc, Manouch Moshayedi, Mark Moshayedi and others
Consolidated Defendant:
Raymond D Cook, J P Morgan Securities Inc, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc and others
Interested Party:
Mark Berry and Jordan Grayson
Intervenor:
West Virginia Laborers Trust Fund
State of Missouri, et al v. Harris
as 2:2014cv00341
Defendant:
Kamala D. Harris and Karen Ross
Plaintiff:
State of Missouri , State of Nebraska , State of Alabama and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2013cv00502
Debtor:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 158
The State of California et al v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation et al
as 3:2012cv05229
Plaintiff:
The State of California , The State of Arizona , The State of Arkansas and others
Defendant:
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation and Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera, The County of Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Unified School District o et al v. Toshiba Corporation et al
as 3:2012cv05230
Plaintiff:
The State of California by its Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and the City and County of San Francisco Ex Rel Dennis J. Herrera, The County of Santa Clara, and Los Angeles Unified School District o , The State of Arizona by its Attorney GeneralTom Horne , The State of Arkansas by its Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and others
Defendant:
Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
The State of California et al v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al
as 3:2012cv05231
Plaintiff:
The State of California , The State of Arizona , The State of Arkansas and others
Defendant:
Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi America, Ltd.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Davis v. Miller et al
as 4:2009cv00403
Plaintiff:
Larry Lynn Davis
Defendant:
Connie Miller, United States Government, Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
The State of California et al v. Winbond Electronics Co.
as 3:2007cv02589
Plaintiff:
The State of California, The State of Alaska, The State of Arizona and others
Defendant:
Winbond Electronics Co.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
State of California et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
as 3:2007cv01347
Plaintiff:
State of California, State of Alaska, State of Arizona and others
Defendant:
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
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.
