Cases
Cases 31 - 40 of 43
Center for Individual Freedom v. Natalie Tennant
as 11-1993
Plaintiff - Appellant: CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INCORPORATED
Plaintiff: WEST VIRGINIANS FOR LIFE, INCORPORATED and ZANE LAWHORN
Defendant - Appellee: NATALIE H. TENNANT, Secretary of the State of West Virginia; and as a member of the West Virginia State Election Commission, SCOTT ASH, Prosecuting Attorney for Mercer County, as a representative of the class of Prosecuting Attorneys in the State of West Virginia, CINDY SMITH, in their official capacities as members of the West Virginia State Election Commission and others
Intervenor/Defendant: WEST VIRGINIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, BOB BASTRESS and others
Center for Individual Freedom v. Natalie H. Tennant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 11-1952
Plaintiff - Appellee: CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INCORPORATED, WEST VIRGINIANS FOR LIFE, INCORPORATED and ZANE LAWHORN
Defendant - Appellant: NATALIE H. TENNANT, Secretary of the State of West Virginia; and as a member of the West Virginia State Election Commission, WILLIAM N. RENZELLI, GARY COLLIAS and others
Intervenor/Defendant: WEST VIRGINIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, BOB BASTRESS and others
Earl Tucker, et al v. Delbert Hosemann, et al
as 10-60859
Plaintiff - Appellant: EARL TUCKER and ARRECE WEBB, Individually and on behalf of Others Similarly Situated
Defendant - Appellee: DELBERT HOSEMANN, Secretary of State for the State of Mississippi, JIM HOOD, Attorney General Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, combined and in their capacity and STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, Individually as well as in their Representative Capacity and all others Simularly Situated
Tucker et al v. Hosemann et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 2:2010cv00178
Plaintiff: Earl Tucker , Arthur Hotshot Ankston , Curtis Rerun Jackson and others
Defendant: Delbert Hosemann, Jim Hood and State Election Commission
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Type: Civil Rights Voting
Bursey v. South Carolina State Election Commission et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2010cv01545
Plaintiff: Brett Allen Bursey
Defendant: South Carolina State Election Commission and Marci Andino
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Type: Civil Rights Voting
US v. Cintron-Caraballo
as 09-2562
Appellee: UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant: JUAN ENRIQUE CINTRON-CARABALLO
Interested Party: STATE ELECTIONS COMMISSION
US v. Soto-Beniquez
as 09-2114
Appellee: UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant: WILLIAM SOTO-BENIQUEZ, a/k/a William Soto-Enriquez, a/k/a William Descamisao
Interested Party: STATE ELECTIONS COMMISSION
South Carolina Green Party v. South Carolina State Election We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 09-1915
Plaintiff - Appellant: SOUTH CAROLINA GREEN PARTY, EUGENE PLATT and ROBERT DUNHAM
Defendant - Appellee: SOUTH CAROLINA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, JOHN H. HUDGENS, in their official capacities as members of the South Carolina State Election Commission, CYNTHIA M. BENSCH, in their official capacities as members of the South Carolina State Election Commission and others
Gray et al v. South Carolina State Election Commission et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 3:2009cv02126
Plaintiff: Kevin Alexander Gray, Glen Davis, Cassandra Fralix and others
Defendant: South Carolina State Election Commission, John H Hudgens, Cynthia M Bensch and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1973 - Voting Rights Act of 1965
Type: Civil Rights None
US v. Vega-Pacheco
as 09-1520
Appellee: UNITED STATES
Defendant - Appellant: CARMELO VEGA-PACHECO, a/k/a Popeye
Interested Party: STATE ELECTIONS COMMISSION and US PROBATION

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.


Why Is My Information Online?