Cases 11 - 20 of 53
Judy Doe v. Michael L. Parson, et al
as 19-1578
Defendant / Appellee:
David E. Tannenhill, D.O., Member of the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, Sara Martin, PhD, Member of the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts, James A. Direnna, D.O., Member of the Missouri Board of Regstration for the Healing Arts and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
Judy Doe
McPeters v. Precythe et al
as 2:2019cv01185
Petitioner:
Paris McPeters
Respondent:
Anne L Precythe, Amy Cope, Daniel Pelikan and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Parker v. Shartle
as 4:2017cv00362
Petitioner:
Kenneth D. Parker
Respondent:
JT Shartle and Attorney General of the State of MissourI
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Ronald Calzone v. Chris Koster, et al
as 16-3650
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Ronald Calzone
Defendant - Appellee:
Chris Koster, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Missouri, J. Bret Johnson, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Jeremiah W. Nixon, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Missouri
The Satanic Temple, et al v. Jeremiah Nixon, et al
as 16-3387
Plaintiff - Appellant:
The Satanic Temple and Mary Doe
Defendant - Appellee:
Jeremiah Jay Nixon, Governor of the State of Missouri and Chris Koster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri
Missouri Broadcasters Assoc., et al v. Lafayette Lacy, et al
as 16-2006
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Missouri Broadcasters Association, Meyer Farms, Inc., Uncle D's Sports Bar & Grill, L.L.C. and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Lafayette E. Lacy, State Supervisor of Liquor Control, in his official capacity and Chris Koster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, in his official capacity
Shirley Phelps-Roper v. Chris Koster, et al
as 15-1102
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Shirley Phelps-Roper
Defendant - Appellee:
Chris Koster, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Missouri, Jeremiah W. Nixon, in his official capacity as Governor for the State of Missouri and Ronald K. Repogle, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol
Defendant:
Mark Goodwin, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Carroll County, Angie Hemphill Wright, in her official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Laclede County, Richard E. Wrinkle, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Laclede County and others
Shirley Phelps-Roper v. Chris Koster, et al
as 14-3266
Plaintiff - Appellee:
Shirley Phelps-Roper
Defendant - Appellant:
Chris Koster, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Missouri, Jeremiah W. Nixon, in his official capacity as Governor for the State of Missouri and Ronald K. Repogle, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol
Defendant:
Mark Goodwin, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Carroll County, Angie Hemphill Wright, in her official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Laclede County, Richard E. Wrinkle, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Laclede County and others
Shirley Phelps-Roper v. Chris Koster, et al
as 14-3058
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Shirley Phelps-Roper
Defendant - Appellee:
Chris Koster, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Missouri, Jeremiah W. Nixon, in his official capacity as Governor for the State of Missouri and Ronald K. Repogle, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol
Defendant:
Mark Goodwin, in his official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Carroll County, Angie Hemphill Wright, in her official capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for Laclede County, Richard E. Wrinkle, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Laclede County and others
Dale McKenzie v. Troy Steele, et al
as 13-3286
Petitioner - Appellant:
Dale W. McKenzie
Respondent - Appellee:
Troy Steele and Chris Koster, Attorney General of the State of Missouri
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.
