Cases 31 - 40 of 157
Kotlyarsky v. United States Department of Justice
as 22-2750
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Boris Kotlyarsky, an individual
Defendant / Appellee:
United States Department of Justice, a Governmental federal agency, Preet Bharara, in his official capacity and James Comey, in his official capacity
Pierre v. United States
as 1:2022cv08704
Petitioner:
Katheline M. Pierre
Respondent:
United States and Federal Agency of Deposit Insurance Corporation
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
V.S.O. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a federal agency et al
as 1:2022cv03802
Plaintiff:
V.S.O.
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, a federal agency, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, a federal agency, U.S. Department of State and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Friends of the Crazy Mountains, et al v. Mary Erickson, et al
as 22-35555
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FRIENDS OF THE CRAZY MOUNTAINS, a public land organization, MONTANA CHAPTER BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS, a non-profit organization, ENHANCING MONTANA'S WILDLIFE AND HABITAT, a public outreach organization and others
Defendant / Appellee:
MARY ERICKSON, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Custer Gallatin National Forest, LEANNE MARTEN, in her official capacity as Regional Forester, Region One, for the U.S. Forest Service, VICKI CHRISTIANSEN, in her official capacity as chief of the U.S. Forest Service and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2022cv05299
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Falastin Martin v. U.S. Government
as 22-1404
Plaintiff / Appellant:
FALASTIN MARTIN
Defendant / Appellee:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Multiple U.S. Government federal agencies
Tesfabruk v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), et al
as 1:2022cv01460
Plaintiff:
Tsigeweini Yohanes Tesfabruk
Defendant:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, a federal agency, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, a federal agency, U.S. Department of State and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551 Administrative Procedure Act
WildEarth Guardians, et al v. Kurtis Steele, et al
as 22-35135
Plaintiff / Appellant:
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, a non-profit organization and WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, a non-profit organization
Plaintiff:
SWAN VIEW COALITION and FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN
Defendant / Appellee:
KURTIS E. STEELE, in his capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Flathead National Forest, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, a federal agency, MARTHA WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as Principal Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellee:
MONTANA LOGGING ASSOCIATION and AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL
WildEarth Guardians, et al v. Kurtis Steele, et al
as 22-35137
Plaintiff:
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, a non-profit organization and WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, a non-profit organization
Plaintiff / Appellant:
SWAN VIEW COALITION and FRIENDS OF THE WILD SWAN
Defendant / Appellee:
KURTIS E. STEELE, in his capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Flathead National Forest, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, a federal agency, MARTHA WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as Principal Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellee:
MONTANA LOGGING ASSOCIATION and AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL
WildEarth Guardians, et al v. Montana Logging Association, et al
as 22-35124
Plaintiff / Appellee:
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, a non-profit organization, WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, a non-profit organization, SWAN VIEW COALITION and others
Defendant:
KURTIS E. STEELE, in his capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Flathead National Forest, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, a federal agency, MARTHA WILLIAMS, in her official capacity as Principal Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellant:
MONTANA LOGGING ASSOCIATION and AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL
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.
