Cases 21 - 30 of 46
State of North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority
as 09-1623
Plaintiff / Appellee:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. Roy Cooper, Attorney General
Defendant / Appellant:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Intervenor:
STATE OF ALABAMA
Amicus Curiae:
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA and others
SANDVIK, INC. et al v. HAMPSHIRE PARTNERS FUND VI, L.P. et al
as 2:2013cv04667
Plaintiff:
SANDVIK, INC. and THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC.
Defendant:
HAMPSHIRE PARTNERS FUND VI, L.P. and 18-01 POLLITT DRIVE LLC
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 9613 CERCLA
State of New York v. Solvent Chemical Company, Inc.
as 13-132
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant:
State of New York
Third-Party-Plaintiff:
Olin Corporation, Mader Capital Corp., 3163 Buffalo Avenue Corporation and others
Third-Party-Defendant:
United States of America, Occidental Chemical Corporation, The City of Niagara Falls, New York and others
Defendant:
Recochem
Defendant - Appellee:
Solvent Chemical Company, Inc.
Defendant - Appellant:
E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
State of New York v. Solvent Chemical Company, Inc.
as 13-148
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant:
State of New York
Third-Party-Plaintiff:
Mader Capital Corp., 3163 Buffalo Avenue Corporation and Corigan Sanoian, Individually and d/b/a Quad Technologies
Third-Party-Plaintiff - Appellant:
Olin Corporation
Third-Party-Defendant:
United States of America, Occidental Chemical Corporation, The City of Niagara Falls, New York and others
Defendant:
Recochem and E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
Defendant - Appellee:
Solvent Chemical Company, Inc.
CITY OF DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL
as 1:2012cv01994
Plaintiff:
CITY OF DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE , CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE and CITY OF ROCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Defendant:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, LISA P. JACKSON and H. CURTIS SPALDING
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1365 Environmental Matters
SRSNE Site Group v. Advance Coatings Co., et al
as 3:2012cv00443
Plaintiff:
SRSNE Site Group
Defendant:
Aetna Chemical Corporation, Ambion Corp., American Marking Systems, Inc. and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 6901
Martha's Vineyard/Dukes County, et al v. John E. Bryson, et al
as 11-5311
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Martha's Vineyard/Dukes County Fisherman's Association and Michael S. Flaherty
Defendant - Appellee:
Gary F. Locke, Secretary of the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and others
New Hampshire Commercial, et al v. Locke, et al
as 11-1987
Plaintiff:
JAMES LOVGREN, NEW BEDFORD, MA, PAUL THERIAULT and others
Plaintiff - Appellant:
NEW HAMPSHIRE COMMERICAL FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, DAVID ARIPOTCH, RICHARD GRACHEK and others
Defendant - Appellee:
GARY F LOCKE, Secretary of Commerce, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA), NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE and others
Interested Party:
BARNEY FRANK, JOHN F. TIERNEY, DEVAL PATRICK and others
Tempest Fisheries, et al v. Locke, et al
as 11-2001
Plaintiff:
JAMES LOVGREN, NEW BEDFORD, MA, NEW HAMPSHIRE COMMERICAL FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION and others
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TEMPEST FISHERIES, LTD, GRACE FISHING, INC., ROANOKE FISH CO., INC. and others
Defendant - Appellee:
GARY F LOCKE, Secretary of Commerce, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA), NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE and others
Interested Party:
BARNEY FRANK, JOHN F. TIERNEY, DEVAL PATRICK and others
Lovgren v. Locke, et al
as 11-1964
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES LOVGREN
Plaintiff:
NEW BEDFORD, MA, NEW HAMPSHIRE COMMERICAL FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, PAUL THERIAULT and others
Defendant - Appellee:
GARY F LOCKE, Secretary of Commerce, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA), NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE and others
Interested Party:
BARNEY FRANK, JOHN F. TIERNEY, DEVAL PATRICK and others
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.