Cases 1 - 10 of 55
US, et al v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, et al
as 24-1092
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and others
Defendant:
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION and SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.
Interested Party:
BOEING CO., UNITED AIRLINES, INC., SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. and others
Amicus Curiae:
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Arcell, et al v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, et al
as 23-1897
Plaintiff / Appellant:
KATHERINE R. ARCELL, JOSE M. BRITO, JAN-MARIE BROWN and others
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY NIEBOR, GABRIEL GARAVANIAN and JUNE STANSBURY
Defendant / Appellee:
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION and SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC.
Interested Party:
UNITED STATES, UNITED AIRLINES, INC., SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. and others
US, et al v. American Airlines Group Inc.
as 23-1802
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES, STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA and others
Defendant / Appellant:
AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC. and AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP INC.
Defendant:
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION
Interested Party:
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., DELTA AIR LINES, INC., GLEN HAUENSTEIN and others
United States of America et al v. JetBlue Airways Corporation et al
as 1:2023cv10511
Plaintiff:
United States of America, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, District of Columbia and others
Defendant:
JetBlue Airways Corporation and Spirit Airlines, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25 Clayton Act
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. American Airlines Group Inc. et al
as 1:2021cv11558
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, State of Arizona, State of California and others
Defendant:
American Airlines Group Inc. and JetBlue Airways Corporation
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Ardaneh v. US Government, et al
as 20-1887
Defendant / Appellee:
CAMBRIDGE DISTRICT COURT, HEATHER STROUD, US JEWISH MAFIA and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
HAMID REZA ARDANEH
Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al
as 1:2020cv11311
Plaintiff:
State of Minnesota, State of Maryland, State of Connecticut and others
Defendant:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Matthew T. Albence, Chad F. Wolf and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Demos v. Barr, et al
as 19-1428
Defendant:
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, STATE OF WASHINGTON, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS
Defendant / Appellee:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and MICHAEL POMPEO, Secretary of State
Worman, et al v. Healey, et al
as 18-1545
Defendant:
MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE and CHARLES D. BAKER, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Amicus Curiae:
ROYCE BARONDES, GREATER BOSTON INTERFAITH ORGANIZATION, MASSACHUSETTS CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC. and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
DAVID SETH WORMAN, ANTHONY LINDEN, JASON WILLIAM SAWYER and others
Defendant / Appellee:
RICHARD D. MCKEON, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, MAURA T. HEALEY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, KERRY GILPIN, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police and others
Plaintiff:
NICHOLAS ANDREW FELD
Gould, et al v. Morgan, et al
as 17-2202
Amicus Curiae:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, STATE OF DELAWARE, ERWIN CHEMERINSKY and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
COMMONWEALTH SECOND AMENDMENT, INC., CHRISTOPHER HART, SARAH ZESCH and others
Defendant / Appellee:
DANIEL C. O'LEARY, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the Brookline Police Department, WILLIAM G. GROSS, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Boston Police Department, MARK MORGAN, Acting Chief of the Brookline Police Department and others
Petitioner:
ALAN B. MORRISON and JACK RAKOVE
Plaintiff:
IRWIN CRUZ and MARKUS VALLASTER
Defendant:
DAVID A. PROVENCHER, in his Official Capacity as Chief of the New Bedford Police Department
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.
