Cases 1 - 10 of 33
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-2287
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Joshua McCoy v. ATF
as 23-2085
Plaintiff / Appellee:
JOSHUA CLAY MCCOY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class, TYLER DALTON MCGRATH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class, IAN FLETCHER SHACKLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a Class and others
Defendant / Appellant:
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, STEVEN MICHAEL DETTELBACH, in his official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
J. Phillips v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
as 23-1951
Plaintiff / Appellant:
J. DWAYNE PHILLIPS, MARK EHRLICH, RYAN MESZAROS and others
Defendant / Appellee:
RECTORS AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, WHITTINGTON WHITESIDE CLEMENT, in his official capacity as Rector of the University of Virginia, ROBERT D. HARDIE, in his official capacity as Vice Rector of the University of Virginia and others
Defendant:
MARY FRANCES SOUTHERLAND, Chief Administrative Officer UVA Health, in her individual capacity, JOHN DOES 1-5, Senior Human Resources personnel of UVA Health, in their individual capacities, JOHN DOES 1-14, Senior Human Resources personnel of UVA Health, in their individual and official capacities and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 23-1854
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Lois Gibson v. State of Maryland
as 23-1369
Plaintiff / Appellant:
LOIS ANN GIBSON, MARYLAND 20-20 WATCH, FREDERICK, MARYLAND, CLASS REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23, AND/OR PUTATIVE CLASSES OF SIMILARLY SITUATED VOTERS OF MARYLAND AND/OR ELSEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and others
Defendant / Appellee:
THE STATE OF MARYLAND, and Several Agencies of the State, Including at least the State and County Boards of Elections in the Specific Counties Listed herein, A STATE AND NATIONAL RICO ENTERPRISE, IN PART LOCATED IN MARYLAND, AND/OR DOING BUSINESS AS PART OF THE COMMERCE IN MARYLAND WITH COUNTIES, I.E., FREDERICK, HOWARD COUNTY, CARROLL COUNTIES, MARYLAND AND 18 ADDITIONAL COUNTIES OR VOTING JURISDICTIONS, CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE (CTCL), A Chicago IRS Code 501 (c) (3) Corporation and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 22-2010
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant / Appellant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Christopher Fain v. William Crouch
as 22-1927
Plaintiff / Appellee:
CHRISTOPHER FAIN and SHAUNTAE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff:
ZACHARY MARTELL, BRIAN MCNEMAR, LEANN JAMES and others
Defendant / Appellant:
WILLIAM CROUCH, in his official capacity as Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, CYNTHIA BEANE, in her official capacity as Commissioner for the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services and WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, Bureau for Medical Services
Defendant:
TED CHEATHAM, THE HEALTH PLAN OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC. and JASON HAUGHT, Interim Director of the West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency
Gibson et al v. Frederick County Maryland et al
as 1:2022cv01642
Plaintiff:
Louis Ann Gibson, Maryland 20-20 Watch, Amicus Curia and others
Defendant:
Frederick County Maryland, Howard County Maryland, Carroll County Maryland and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2021cv01454
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
Easton Partners ILP v. Nesbitt
as 1:2018cv01574
Plaintiff:
Easton Partners ILP and Easton Partners ILP doing business as Crescent Falls Church
Defendant:
Mark Nesbitt and all others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446
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.
