Cases 81 - 90 of 2,495
McCann v. State of Mississippi
as 2:2023cv00151
Plaintiff:
Frankie L. McCann
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Francois v. State of Mississippi
as 1:2023cv00277
Plaintiff:
Josemany Jean Francois
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., et al v. Merrick B. Garland, et al
as 23-3230
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., State of West Virginia, State of North Dakota and others
Defendant / Appellee:
Merrick B. Garland, in his Official Capacity, as Attorney General of the United States, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, The and Steven Dettelbach, in his Official Capacity, as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Appellant:
Members of Congress
Pipkin v. Cain et al
as 3:2023cv00434
Petitioner:
Devonta Pipkin
Respondent:
Nathan Burl Cain, Mississippi Department of Corrections and The Attorney General of the State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2021md02981
Defendant:
Alphabet Inc., Google Payment Corp., Google Commerce Limited and others
Plaintiff:
Jared Stark, Ashly Esquivel, Robert Wing and others
Counter Defendant:
Epic Games, Inc., Match Group, LLC and Humor Rainbow, Inc.
Counter Claimant:
Google LLC and Google Asia Pacific PTE. Limited
Not Classified By Court:
Activision Blizzard, Inc., Niantic, Inc., Big Fish Games and others
Amicus Curiae:
American Antitrust Institute and Economists Supporting Dr. Rysman as Proposed Amici
3Rd Party Defendant:
Riot Games, Inc.
Interested Party:
Valve Corporation, Nintendo of America Inc., Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and others
Petitioner:
Amazon.com LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Robinson v. Ardoin
as 22-30333
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Press Robinson, Edgar Cage, Dorothy Nairne and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Kyle Ardoin, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for Louisiana
Intervenor Defendant / Appellant:
Clay Schexnayder, Patrick Page Cortez and State of Louisiana - Attorney General Jeff Landry
Amicus Curiae:
State of Alabama, State of Arkansas, State of Georgia and others
Not Classified By Court:
James F. Blumstein
Dickerson v. State of Mississippi
as 3:2023cv03097
Plaintiff:
Justin Dewayne Dickerson
Defendant:
State of Mississippi
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Rambus v. State of Mississippi
as 1:2023cv00135
Petitioner:
Carl Rambus
Respondent:
State of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
In re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation
as 1:2021md03010
Plaintiff:
Associated Newspapers Ltd., Mail Media, Inc., Emmerich Newspapers, Incorporated and others
Defendant:
Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Facebook Inc. and others
Interpleader:
State of Louisiana and State of South Carolina
Interested Party:
The Nation Company, L.P., Genius Media Group, Inc., Mikula Web Solutions, Inc. and others
Amicus Curiae:
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 23 Media Organizations
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
American Lung Association, et al v. EPA, et al
as 19-1140
Respondent:
Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency and Jane Nishida, Acting Administrator
Petitioner:
American Lung Association and American Public Health Association
Intervenor:
State of Kansas, Phil Bryant, Governor of the State of Mississippi, State of Texas and others
Amicus Curiae:
City of Portland, Debra A. Haaland, Michael Oppenheimer and others
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.
