Cases 21 - 30 of 34
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax et al
as 2:2019mc00009
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Troy Newman, Center for Medical Progress & BioMax, Gerardo Lopez Lopez and others
Receiver:
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. and Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. Doing business as Planned Parenthood Northern California
Respondent:
StemExpress, LLC and Sarah Heuston
Planned Parenthood Federation of America et al v. Center for Medical Progress & BioMax
as 2:2019at00042
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Pasadena & San Gabriel Valley, Inc. and others
Defendant:
Troy Newman, Center for Medical Progress & BioMax, Gerardo Lopez Lopez and others
Receiver:
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. and Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. Doing business as Planned Parenthood Northern California
Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc et al v. Center for Medical Progress et al
as 2:2019mc00007
Defendant:
Center for Medical Progress, Biomax Procurement Services, LLC, Albin Rhomberg and others
Plaintiff:
Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast and others
Respondent:
Deborah Nucatola
Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, et al v. Rebekah Gee
as 18-30699
Plaintiff - Appellee:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD GULF COAST, INCORPORATED, PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE, JANE DOE #1 and others
Defendant - Appellant:
REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health
Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. et al v. Gee
as 3:2018cv00176
Plaintiff:
Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe #3 and others
Unknown:
Kourosh Jahansouz, Yekaterina M Reyzis, David Rhinesmith and others
Defendant:
Rebekah Gee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Center for Medical Progress, et al v. USDC-CASF
as 17-73313
:
In re: CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS and DAVID DALEIDEN
Petitioner:
CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS and DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO
Real Party In Interest:
NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, NAF, PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., PLANNED PARENTHOOD: SHASTA-DIABLO, INC., DBA Planned Parenthood Northern California and others
Whole Woman's Health, et al v. Ken Paxton, et al
as 17-51060
Plaintiff - Appellee:
WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH, On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians and Patients, PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE, On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians, and Patients, PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS SURGICAL HEALTH SERVICES, On Behalf of Itself, Its Staff, Physicians, and Patients and others
Defendant - Appellant:
KEN PAXTON, Attorney General of Texas, In His Official Capacity, FAITH JOHNSON, District Attorney for Dallas County, In Her Official Capacity, SHAREN WILSON, Criminal District Attorney for Tarrant County, In Her Official Capacity and others
Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton
as 1:2017cv00537
Plaintiff:
Whole Woman's Health, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services and others
Defendant:
Ken Paxton , Margaret Moore, Nicholas Lahood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton
as 1:2017mc00303
Plaintiff:
Whole Woman's Health, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services and others
Defendant:
Ken Paxton , Margaret Moore, Nicholas Lahood and others
Whole Woman's Health et al v. Paxton et al
as 1:2017cv00690
Plaintiff:
Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Curtis Boyd, M.D., Alan Braid, M.D. and others
Defendant:
Jaime Esparza, Faith Johnson, Nicholas LaHood and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights 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.
