Cases 31 - 40 of 371
In Re Jefferson Parish
as 23-30243
Petitioner:
In re: Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Regional Landfill Company, Waste Connections Bayou, Incorporated and others
Respondent:
Elias Jorge Ictech-Bendeck, also known as George Ictech-Bendeck, Savannah Thompson, Larry Bernard, Sr. and others
Jefferson Parish v. Chevron USA
as 23-30225
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Jefferson Parish and Louisiana State, ex rel. Parish of Jefferson
Intervenor Plaintiff:
Louisiana State, ex rel. Jeff Landry, Attorney General and Louisiana State, through the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management and its Secretary, Thomas F. Harris
Defendant / Appellant:
Chevron USA Holdings, Incorporated, Atlantic Richfield Company, Chevron USA, Incorporated and others
Jefferson Parish v. Exxon Mobil
as 23-30227
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Jefferson Parish and Louisiana State, Ex Rel Parish of Jefferson
Intervenor / Appellee:
Louisiana State, through the Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Management and its Secretary, Thomas F. Harris and Louisiana State, Ex Rel. Jeff Landry Attorney General
Defendant / Appellant:
Exxon Mobil Corporation, Named as Successor in Interest to Exxon Corporation, The Superior Oil Company, and Humble Oil and Refining Company, Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, L.L.C., Named as Successor in Interest to The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, Chevron USA Holdings, Incorporated, Named as Successor in Interest to Texaco, Incorporated and others
Plaquemines Prsh v. Exxon Mobil
as 23-30188
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Plaquemines Parish
Intervenor / Appellee:
Louisiana State, through the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management and its Secretary, Thomas F. Harris and Louisiana State, ex rel. Jeff Landry, Attorney General
Defendant / Appellant:
Exxon Mobil Corporation, as successor in interest to Exxon Corporation and Humble Oil and Refining Company, ConocoPhillips Company, as successor in interest to General American Oil Company of Texas, Phillips Oil Company, Phillips Petrleum company, U.S. Oil of Louisiana, Incorporated, Chevron USA, Incorporated, as successor in interest to Gulf Oil corporation and The California Company and others
Akula v. Cassidy et al
as 2:2023cv01057
Plaintiff:
Shiva Akula
Defendant:
Bernard Cassidy, Palmetto GBA, LLC, Kelly Melech Anderson and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Parish of Cameron v. BP America Prod
as 23-30056
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Parish of Cameron
Intervenor Plaintiff:
State of Louisiana, ex rel, Jeff Landry and State of Louisiana, on behalf of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of Office of Coastal Management, on behalf of Thomas F. Harris
Defendant / Appellant:
BP America Production Company, Chevron Pipe Line Company, Chevron USA Holdings, Incorporated and others
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. New Orleans Seafood & Daiquiris, Inc. L.L.C. et al
as 4:2022cv04512
Plaintiff:
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.
Defendant:
New Orleans Seafood & Daiquiris, Inc. L.L.C. d/b/a New Orleans Seafood & Daiquiris, LLC and d/b/a New Orleans Seafood & Daiquiris, Cohen Paul Landry, Sr. and Tamekia Lashann Landry
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv02143
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Jane Doe v. USDC-ORPIn re: Jane Doe v. USDC-ORP
as 22-70230
Not Classified By Court:
In re: JANE DOE, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, STATE OF LOUISIANA and others
Petitioner:
JANE DOE
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON, PORTLAND
Doe v. Louisiana Department of Justice et al
as 3:2022cv01419
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe
Defendant:
Louisiana Department of Justice, State of Louisiana, City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge and others
Cause Of Action: 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act
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.
