Cases 31 - 40 of 72
NetChoice v. Bonta
as 5:2025cv03178
Plaintiff:
NetChoice
Defendant:
Rob Bonta
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
NetChoice v. Murrill et al
as 3:2025cv00231
Plaintiff:
NetChoice
Defendant:
Liz Murrill and Mike Dupree
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
NetChoice v. Brown et al
as 1:2025cv00322
Plaintiff:
NetChoice
Defendant:
Anthony G. Brown and William D. Gruhn
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
TECHNET et al v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU et al
as 1:2025cv00118
Plaintiff:
TECHNET and NETCHOICE, LLC
Defendant:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU and ROHIT CHOPRA
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions
NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta
as 24-7879
Defendant:
ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California
Plaintiff:
NETCHOICE, LLC
NetChoice v. Bonta
as 5:2024cv07885
Plaintiff:
NetChoice
Defendant:
Rob Bonta
Amicus Curiae:
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION et al v. MOODY
as 4:2024cv00438
Plaintiff:
NETCHOICE and COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Defendant:
ASHLEY BROOKE MOODY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
NetChoice v. Reyes, et al
as 24-4100
Defendant:
SEAN D. REYES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Utah and KATHERINE HASS, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Consumer Protection of the Utah Department of Commerce
Plaintiff:
NETCHOICE LLC
NetChoice v. Skrmetti
as 3:2024cv01191
Defendant:
Jonathan Skrmetti
Plaintiff:
NetChoice
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Computer & Communications v. Paxton
as 24-50721
Plaintiff:
NetChoice, L.L.C. and Computer & Communications Industry Association
Defendant:
Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas
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.
