Cases 51 - 60 of 76
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, et al
as 14-4031
Consolidated Plaintiff:
TIMPANOGOS TRIBE
Defendant Third-Party Defendant:
BRUCE IGNACIO, Chairman of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity
Defendant Counter Claimant:
STATE OF UTAH and DUCHESNE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah
Defendant Counter Claimant Third-Party Plaintiff - Appellant:
UINTAH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah
Defendant Counter Claimant Third-Party Plaintiff - Appellee:
UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION
Defendant:
MYTON, a municial corporation, ROOSEVELT COUNTY, a municipal corporation and DUCHESNE CITY, a municipal corporation
Third-Party Defendant:
GORDON HOWELL, Chairman of the Business Committee, RONALD J. WOPSOCK, STEWART PIKE, Member of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity and others
Amicus Curiae:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Movant:
GARY GARDNER and TIMPANOGOS TRIBE SNAKE BANK SHOSHONE INDIANS
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, et al
as 14-4028
Consol Plaintiff:
TIMPANOGOS TRIBE
Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant - Appellant:
UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION
Defendant-Third-Party-Defendant:
BRUCE IGNACIO, Chairman of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity
Defendant-Counter-Claimant - Appellee:
DUCHESNE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah
Defendant:
MYTON, a municial corporation, STATE OF UTAH, ROOSEVELT COUNTY, a municipal corporation and others
Third-Party-Defendant:
GORDON HOWELL, Chairman of the Business Committee, RONALD J. WOPSOCK, STEWART PIKE, Member of the Ute Tribal Business Committee, in his official capacity and others
Amicus Curiae:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Hackford, et al v. State of Utah, et al
as 14-4027
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHITA MARIE HACKFORD, NATHAN S. COLLET, OPAL S. HACKFORD and others
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF UTAH, DUCHESNE COUNTY, ROOSEVELT CITY CORPORATION and others
Gale v. Uintah County et al
as 2:2013cv00725
Plaintiff:
Denile Gale
Defendant:
Uintah County, Loren W. Anderson and Jeff Merrell
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. State of Utah et al
as 2:2013cv00276
Plaintiff:
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation
Defendant:
State of Utah , Duchesne County, Roosevelt City and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Kenczka et al
as 2:2012cv00913
Plaintiff:
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Defendant:
Jerry Kenczka , United States Department of the Interior and United States Bureau of Land Management
Intervenor_defendant:
Uintah County , Uintah Transportation Special Services District , State of Utah and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 4332 Environmental Policy - Coop of Agency Repo
Gardner v. Wilkins, et al
as 12-4156
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant - Appellant:
EDSON G. GARDNER, Uintah Indian Descendant
Defendant-Counter-Claimant - Appellee:
MICHAEL W. WILKINS, Uintah County Clerk-Auditor
Defendant:
STATE OF UTAH
Cunningham v. Uintah County
as 2:2012cv00699
Plaintiff:
Justin Cunningham
Defendant:
Uintah County
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Uintah County et al v. USA et al
as 2:2012cv00461
Plaintiff:
Uintah County and State of Utah
Defendant:
USA, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2409
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance et al v. Allred et al
as 2:2012cv00257
Defendant:
Marcilynn Burke, C. Stephen Allred, United States Department of the Interior and others
Plaintiff:
Utah Rivers Council, National Parks Conservation Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and others
Petitioner:
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition and Blueribbon Coalition
Intervenor Defendant:
XTO Energy, Par 5 Exploration, LLC, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and others
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1365
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.
