Cases 1 - 10 of 10
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. EXXON MOBIL CORP. et al
as 1:2020cv01932
Plaintiff:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Defendant:
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, EXXON MOBIL CORP., SHELL OIL COMPANY and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
CHEVRON CORPORATION v. NARANJO et al
as 1:2012mc00673
Petitioner:
CHEVRON CORPORATION
Respondent:
HUGO GERARDO CAMACHO NARANJO and JAVIER PIAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
CHEVRON CORPORATION et al v. REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
as 1:2012cv01247
Petitioner:
CHEVRON CORPORATION and TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY
Respondent:
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
Cause Of Action: 09 U.S.C. § 0202
THE WEINBERG GROUP v. CHEVRON CORPORATION
as 1:2011mc00545
Respondent:
CHEVRON CORPORATION
Petitioner:
THE WEINBERG GROUP
Cause Of Action: MS:MiscOrd
CHEVRON CORPORATION v. SALAZAR et al
as 1:2011mc00409
Petitioner:
CHEVRON CORPORATION
Respondent:
THE WEINBERG GROUP
Cause Of Action: Motion to Compel
PATTON BOGGS LLP v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al
as 1:2011cv00799
Plaintiff:
PATTON BOGGS LLP
Defendant:
CHEVRON CORPORATION and GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
CHEVRON CORPORATION v. WEINBERG GROUP, INC.
as 1:2011mc00030
Petitioner:
CHEVRON CORPORATION
Respondent:
WEINBERG GROUP, INC.
Movant:
ALFREDO PAYAGUAJE , ARMANDO WILMER PIAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE , BEATRIZ MERCEDES GREFA TANGUILA and others
Cause Of Action: MS:MiscOrd
PATTON BOGGS LLP v. CHEVRON CORPORATION
as 1:2010cv01975
Plaintiff:
PATTON BOGGS LLP
Defendant:
CHEVRON CORPORATION
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
COLLINGSWORTH v. CHEVRON CORPORATION et al
as 1:2010mc00396
Respondent:
CHEVRON CORPORATION
Petitioner:
TERRENCE P. COLLINGSWORTH
Cause Of Action: Motion to Quash Subpoenas
In Re: APPLICATION TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE TAKING OF A DEPOSITION AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
as 1:2010mc00371
Petitioner:
CHEVRON CORPORATION
Respondent:
NORMAN NELSON ALBERT WRAY ESPINOSA
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.
