Cases 1 - 10 of 10
The United States v. State of Idaho
![Final or Interim Order We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case](/bundles/docketsbrowsing/images/gavel.png)
as 1:2022cv00329
Plaintiff:
The United States and United States of America
Defendant:
State of Idaho
Intervenor Defendant:
Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives Scott Bedke, Idaho Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Winder, and the Sixty-Sixth Idaho Legislature
Amicus Curiae:
New York, State of, California, State of, Connecticut, State of and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
United States of America et al v. McKesson Corporation et al
![Final or Interim Order We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case](/bundles/docketsbrowsing/images/gavel.png)
as 3:2021mc80065
Plaintiff:
Tennessee, New York, State of, State of Nevada and others
Defendant:
McKesson Corporation and Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation
3Rd Party Defendant:
Office of the A California State Board of Pharmacy
Commodity Futures Trading Commission et al v. Colorado Securities Commissioner et al
as 2:2020mc00053
Defendant:
Lucas Thomas Erb, Luke Asher, TMTE Incorporated and others
Plaintiff:
Dana Nessel, South Dakota Department of Labor & Regulation, Douglas M Ommen and others
Receiver:
Kelly Crawford
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Cancer Fund of America Incorporated et al
as 2:2015cv00884
Defendant:
James Reynolds, II, Cancer Fund of America Incorporated a Delaware corporation doing business as Breast Cancer Financial Assistance Fund, Cancer Support Services Incorporated and others
Plaintiff:
Federal Trade Commission, Alabama, State of, Alaska, State of and others
Receiver:
Receivership Management Incorporated
Petitioner:
First Tennessee Bank NA, Associated Community Services Incorporated and Central Processing Services LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045
In re: TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. SEC. LITIGA
as 13-55613
:
In re: TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
Plaintiff:
HARRY STACKHOUSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MARYLAND STATE RETIREMENT AND PENSION SYSTEMS, FKA Institutional Investor Group, ROBERT M. MOSS and FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION
Defendant:
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, and certain of its officers, directors, and affiliates, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. and others
Movant - Appellant:
JAMES J. HAYES
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2013cv00734
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Job Discrimination (Race)
Zahler v. United States et al
as 2:2012cv03075
Plaintiff:
Eric Zahler
Defendant:
United States, United States Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1962
The Government of Guam Retirement Fund et al v. Countrywide Financial Corporation et al
as 2:2011cv06239
Plaintiff:
Alaska International Trust, Alaska Large-Cap Trust, Alaska Money Market Trust and others
Defendant:
Bank of America Corporation, Countrywide Capital V, Countrywide Financial Corporation and others
Unknown:
Stichting Pensioenfonds Zorg En Welzijn
Adam Richards, et al v. Ed Prieto, et al
as 11-16255
Amicus Curiae:
MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION NETWORK, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, ADAM RICHARDS, CALGUNS FOUNDATION, INC. and others
Defendant / Appellee:
COUNTY OF YOLO and ED PRIETO
Edward Peruta, et al v. County of San Diego, et al
as 10-56971
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION, LESLIE BUNCHER, Dr., MICHELLE LAXSON and others
Intervenor:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Amicus Curiae:
MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION, ROBERT T. DOYLE, Marin County Sheriff and others
Defendant / Appellee:
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO and WILLIAM D. GORE, individually and in his capacity as Sheriff
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.