Cases 1 - 10 of 2,028
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufact v. EPA
as DC/1:24-CA-01151
Plaintiff:
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufact
Defendant:
EPA
LaKamp, et al. v. Runft, et al.
as 24-3543
Plaintiff:
CHARLES M. LAKAMP, doing business as Metrom Associated Service, a California sole proprietorship and MARIANNE LAKAMP, husband and wife, individually and as Trustees of the LaKamp Family Trust UTD February 23, 1999
Defendant:
JOHN L. RUNFT, an individual, JOHN CRIGLER, an individual, THE ESTATE OF JOHN MALLETTA and others
United States Steel Corporation v. EPA, et al
as 24-1172
Petitioner:
United States Steel Corporation
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Michael S. Regan, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Steel Corporation v. EPA, et al
as 24-1171
Petitioner:
United States Steel Corporation
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Michael S. Regan, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2024cv01499
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Nicholas GarnerIn re: Nicholas Garner
as 24-5506
Petitioner:
In re: NICHOLAS COREY GARNER, aka Frank Marten, aka Clark David Thomson, aka Wallace Steeves, aka Neal Marion, aka Ronald Peterson, aka Patrick Steele, Nicholis Corey Garner
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufact v. EPA
as 24-1151
Petitioner:
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
Steele v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al
as 1:2024cv00458
Plaintiff:
Terry L. Steele
Defendant:
Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S Department of Justice
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 552 Freedom of Information 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.
