Cases 1 - 10 of 12
Mark Collins v. Arnold Schwarzenegger
as 10-71704
Petitioner:
MARK COLLINS
Respondent:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California
Robert Gibson v. USDCSAC
as 10-70398
:
In re: ROBERT D. GIBSON
Petitioner:
ROBERT D. GIBSON
Respondent:
USDC, SACRAMENTO
Real Party In Interest:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
Calvin Calvin v. USDC-CAC
as 09-74127
:
In re: CALVIN JAMES CALVIN
Petitioner:
CALVIN JAMES CALVIN
Respondent:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Real Party In Interest:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor and STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Gray Panthers of San Francisco, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
as 09-17098
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GRAY PANTHERS OF SAN FRANCISCO, a nonprofit corporation, MARK BECKWITH, LIFELONG MEDICAL CENTER and others
Defendant - Appellee:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California and BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General, Treasurer of the State of California
Defendant:
KIM BELSHE, Secretary of Health and Human Services Agency of the State of California, DAVID MAXWELL-JOLLY, Director of Department of Health Care Services of the State of California, JOHN CHIANG, Controller of the State of California and others
Gray Panthers of San Francisco, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
as 09-16967
Plaintiff - Appellant:
GRAY PANTHERS OF SAN FRANCISCO, a nonprofit corporation, MARK BECKWITH, LIFELONG MEDICAL CENTER and others
Defendant - Appellee:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, KIM BELSHE, Secretary of Health and Human Services Agency of the State of California, DAVID MAXWELL-JOLLY, Director of Department of Health Care Services of the State of California and others
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Ind, et al v. State of California, et al
as 09-16942
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally recognized Indian Tribe
Defendant - Appellant:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION, an agency of the State of California and ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California
Plaintiff-intervenor - Appellee:
PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE CHUKCHANSI INDIANS, Indian Tribe
Amicus Curiae:
SAN PASQUAL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, CALIFORNIA NATIONS INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION, RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS and others
Lydia Dominguez, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
as 09-16359
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MIKESHA MARTINEZ, by and through her husband and next friend Carlos Martinez, SIA CHUE YANG, LYDIA DOMINGUEZ, by and through her mother and next friend Lisa Brown and others
Defendant - Appellant:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, JOHN A. WAGNER, Director of the California Department of Social Services, DAVID MAXWELL-JOLLY, Director of the California Department of Health Care Services and others
Defendant:
FRESNO COUNTY and FRESNO COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Lydia Dominguez, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al
as 09-16359
Plaintiff / Appellee:
MIKESHA MARTINEZ, by and through her husband and next friend Carlos Martinez, SIA CHUE YANG, LYDIA DOMINGUEZ, by and through her mother and next friend Lisa Brown and others
Defendant / Appellant:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, JOHN A. WAGNER, Director of the California Department of Social Services, DAVID MAXWELL-JOLLY, Director of the California Department of Health Care Services and others
Defendant:
FRESNO COUNTY and FRESNO COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al v. Richard Gilman
as 09-80052
Petitioner:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of California and ROBERT DOYLE, Chairman of the Board of Parole Hearings
Respondent:
RICHARD M. GILMAN
State of New York v. EPA
as 08-1202
Petitioner:
State of New York, State of California, by and through Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the State of California, California Air Resources Board and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
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.
