Cases 81 - 90 of 121
Common Cause New York et al v. Board of Elections in the City of New York et al
as 1:2016cv06122
Defendant:
Jose Miguel Araujo, Board of Elections in the City of New York, John Flateau and others
Plaintiff:
Benjamin Buscher, Common Cause New York and Sean Hennessey
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question
Louis M. Duke v. State of North Carolina
as 16-2193
Plaintiff:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES OF THE NAACP, ROSANELL EATON, JOHN DOE 1 and others
Intervenor/Plaintiff:
CHARLES M. GRAY, ASGOD BARRANTES and MARY-WREN RITCHIE
Intervenor/Plaintiff - Appellant:
LOUIS M. DUKE, JOSUE E. BERDUO, BRIAN M. MILLER and others
Defendant - Appellee:
PATRICK L. MCCRORY, in his official capacity as Governor of the state of North Carolina, KIM WESTBROOK STRACH, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections, JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections and others
Intervenor/Defendant:
CHRISTINA KELLEY GALLEGOS-MERRILL and JUDICIAL WATCH, INCORPORATED
COMMON CAUSE et al v. RUCHO et al
as 1:2016cv01026
Plaintiff:
COMMON CAUSE , NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PARTY , LARRY D. HALL and others
Defendant:
ROBERT A. RUCHO, DAVID R. LEWIS, PHILIP E. BERGER and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
Harlan et al v. Scholz et al
as 1:2016cv07832
Plaintiff:
Patrick Harlan and Crawford County Republican Central Committee
Defendant:
Charles W. Scholz , Ernest L. Gowen , Betty J. Coffrin and others
Intervenor_defendant:
David Orr
Amicu:
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Chicago , Action Now Institute , CHANGE Illinois and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
MI State A. Philip Randolph, et al v. Ruth Johnson
as 16-2115
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MICHIGAN STATE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, MARY LANSDOWN, ERIN COMARTIN and others
Defendant - Appellant:
RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State
MI State A. Philip Randolph, et al v. Ruth Johnson
as 16-2071
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MICHIGAN STATE A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, MARY LANSDOWN, ERIN COMARTIN and others
Defendant - Appellant:
RUTH JOHNSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State
League of Women Voters of NC v. State of North Carolina
as 16-1474
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, UNIFOUR ONESTOP COLLABORATIVE and others
Intervenor/Plaintiff:
LOUIS M. DUKE, CHARLES M. GRAY, ASGOD BARRANTES and others
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections, RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections and others
Louis Duke v. State of North Carolina
as 16-1469
Plaintiff:
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, UNIFOUR ONESTOP COLLABORATIVE and others
Intervenor/Plaintiff:
CHARLES M. GRAY, ASGOD BARRANTES and MARY-WREN RITCHIE
Intervenor/Plaintiff - Appellant:
LOUIS M. DUKE, JOSUE E. BERDUO, NANCY J. LUND and others
Defendant - Appellee:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, JOSHUA B. HOWARD, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections, RHONDA K. AMOROSO, in her official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections and others
Common Cause et al v. Kemp
as 1:2016cv00452
Plaintiff:
Common Cause and Georgia State Conference of the NAACP
Defendant:
Brian Kemp
Cause Of Action: 52 U.S.C. § 20501
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, et al
as 15-3866
Petitioner:
PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT
Intervenor Petitioner:
MULTICULTURAL MEDIA TELECOM AND INTERNET COUNCIL and MISSION BROADCASTING INC
Respondent:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Intervenor Respondent:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, NEXSTAR BROADCASTING INC, BENTON FOUNDATION and others
Amicus-petitioner:
COX MEDIA GROUP INC and INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
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.
