Cases 1 - 8 of 8
Johnson v. Connell
as 22-566
Petitioner:
Robert W. Johnson
Respondent:
Stephanie A. Connell, C. Gibbs, Radar Model Stalker Dual and others
Gibbs v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
as WVS/2:15-cv-00978
Plaintiff:
Debra C Gibbs
Defendant:
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Donald Cobb v. Vincent Gray, et al
as 12-7067
Plaintiff - Appellant:
Donald L. Cobb
Defendant - Appellee:
Vincent C. Gray, Jim Graham, Jack Evans and others
Citizens For Smart Growth, et al v. Secretary, Department of Trans, et al
as 11-11056
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CITIZENS FOR SMART GROWTH, ODIAS SMITH, an individual and KAREN JESSICA JEROME SMITH, an individual
Defendant - Appellee:
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, J RICHARD CAPKA, Administrator, Federal Highwy Administration, DAVID C. GIBBS, P.E., Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Florida Division and others
Citizens for Smart Growth, et al v. Sec, Dept. of Trans., et al
as 10-12253
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CITIZENS FOR SMART GROWTH, a Florida Non Profit Corporation, ODIAS SMITH, an individual and KATHIE SMITH, an individual
Defendant - Appellee:
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Mary E. Peters, J RICHARD CAPKA, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, DAVID C. GIBBS, P.E. Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Florida Division and others
Citizens for Smart Growth et al v. Secretary of the Department of Transportation et al
as 2:2007cv14122
Plaintiff:
Citizens for Smart Growth, Citizens for Smart Growth, Citizens for Smart Growth and others
Defendant:
Secretary of the Department of Transportation, J Richard Capka, David C Gibbs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment
William C. Gibbs v. Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
as TXS/4:02-CV-04759
Defendant:
Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co.
Plaintiff:
William C. Gibbs
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.
