Cases 81 - 87 of 87
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2007cv01581
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis
Campos v. Yates, et al.
as 1:2007cv01388
Petitioner:
Ralph William Campos
Respondent:
James A. Yates and Attorney General State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Video Software Deal, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
as 07-16620
Plaintiff - Appellee:
VIDEO SOFTWARE DEALERS ASSOCIATION and ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION
Defendant - Appellant:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor, State of California and EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Attorney General, State of California
Defendant:
GEORGE KENNEDY, in his official capacity as Santa Clara County District Attorney, RICHARD DOYLE, in his official capacity as City Attorney for the City of San Jose and ANN MILLER RAVEL, in her official capacity as County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara
Amicus Curiae:
AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS FOUNDATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION,, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS, INC., COMIC BOOK LEGAL DEFENSE FUND and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 07-56124
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant - Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Campos v. Yates et al
as 4:2007cv04067
Petitioner:
Ralph William Campos
Respondent:
James A. Yates and Attorney General State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Belgarde v. Hubbard et al
as 3:2007cv03348
Petitioner:
Duaine Belgarde
Respondent:
Suzie Hubbard and Attorney General State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2007cv00838
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Employment Discrimination
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.
