Other Statutes Cases
Cases 91 - 100 of 101
State of California v. EPA
as 08-1178
Petitioner: State of California, by and through Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the State of California, the California Air Resources Board, and Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General of the State of California
Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency
Intervenor For Petitioner: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Intervenor For Respondent: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. and National Automobile Dealers Association
Amicus Curiae For Petitioner: National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), National Association of Counties, National League of Cities and others
Amicus Curiae For Respondent: Michael A. Cox, Michigan Attorney General, American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and others
Donovant Grant v. Commonwealth of Virginia et al
as 2:2008cv02354
Plaintiff: Donovant Grant
Defendant: Commonwealth of Virginia, Timothy Kain, The Virginia Department of Social Servicesf and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Forma Pauperis Denial
Bush v. USA et al
as 2:2008cv00163
Petitioner: Kenneth Paul Bush
Respondent: USA, George W. Bush, Michael Mukasey and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Fort Indepedence Indian Community v. State of California et al
as 2:2008at00222
Plaintiff: Fort Indepedence Indian Community and Fort Indepedence Indian Community
Defendant: State of California, Attorney General for the State of California and Arnold Schwarzenegger
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1362 Indian Tribal Controversy
Fort Indepedence Indian Community v. State of California et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2008cv00432
Plaintiff: Fort Indepedence Indian Community and Fort Indepedence Indian Community
Defendant: State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General of the State of California
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1362 Indian Tribal Controversy
Roe v. Schwarzenegger et al
as 1:2007at00490
Plaintiff: William Roe
Defendant: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Bridget Fladagar and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Roe v. Schwarzenegger et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2007cv01382
Plaintiff: William Roe
Defendant: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Bridget Fladagar and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Video Software Deal, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
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
Victor J Bravo v. Arnold Schwarzenegger
as 2:2007cv05601
Plaintiff: Victor J Bravo
Defendant: Arnold Schwarzenegger
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Forma Pauperis Denial
Cachil Dehe Band of, et al v. State of California, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 06-16145
Plaintiff - Appellant: CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally recognized Indian Tribe
Defendant - Appellee: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION, an agency of the State of California and ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California

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.


Why Is My Information Online?