Cases 1 - 10 of 227
Center for Biological Diversity, et al v. Gina Raimondo, et al
as 24-5071
Plaintiff:
Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Conservation Law Foundation, 18-cv-00283-JEB
Defendant:
Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Janet Coit, in her official capacity as Assistant Administrator of NOAA Fisheries
Intervenor:
Maine Lobstermen's Association, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, State of Maine and others
Massachusetts Lobsterman's Association, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al
as 24-1220
Plaintiff:
MASSACHUSETTS LOBSTERMAN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.
Defendant:
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, GINA M. RAIMONDO, Secretary, in her official capacity and JANET COIT, Assistant Administrator, in her official capacity
Appellant:
RICHARD MAXIMUS STRAHAN
Interested Party:
CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, INC., CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE and others
Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) et al
as 1:2024cv10332
Plaintiff:
Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Inc.
Defendant:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Gina Raimondo and Janet Coit
Amicus Curiae:
Pro Se Party Richard Strahan, Conservation Law Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Sierra Club, Inc., et al v. Granite Shore Power LLC, et al
as 24-1041
Plaintiff:
SIERRA CLUB, INC. and CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, INC.
Defendant:
GRANITE SHORE POWER LLC, GSP MERRIMACK LLC and PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, d/b/a Eversource Energy
Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Academy Express, LLC, et al
as 23-1832
Plaintiff / Appellant:
CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, INC.
Defendant / Appellee:
DPV TRANSPORTATION, INC., BOSTON CHARTER BUS, LLC and ACADEMY EXPRESS, LLC
Defendant:
ACADEMY BUS, LLC, WYNN RESORTS, LTD., WYNN MA, LLC and others
State of Ohio, et al v. EPA, et al
as 22-1081
Petitioner:
State of Ohio, State of Alabama, State of Arkansas and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Michael S. Regan, in his official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Intervenor:
State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut and others
Amicus Curiae:
The Two Hundred for Housing Equity, Americans for Tax Reform, American Commitment and others
Not Yet Classified:
ConservAmerica
Conservation Law Foundation Inc. v. Twin Rivers Technologies Holdings Inc. et al
as 1:2023cv11858
Plaintiff:
Conservation Law Foundation Inc.
Defendant:
Twin Rivers Technologies Holdings Inc. and Twin Rivers Technologies Manufacturing Corporation
Cause Of Action: 33 U.S.C. § 1319 Clean Water Act
Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. EPA
as 20-1160
Petitioner:
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
Intervenor:
Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Montana Environmental Information Center and others
State of West Virginia, et al v. EPA, et al
as 15-1363
Petitioner:
State of West Virginia, State of Texas, State of Alabama and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency, Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency and others
Intervenor:
American Wind Energy Association, Advanced Energy Economy, American Lung Association and others
Amicus Curiae:
William D. Ruckelshaus, William K. Reilly, Philip Zoebisch and others
Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, et al
as 16-1127
Intervenor:
American Public Health Association, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, State of California and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler, Gina McCarthy and others
Amicus Curiae:
Robert P. Mason, Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, Joel D. Blum and others
Petitioner:
Murray Energy Corporation
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.
