Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Friant Water Authority et al v. United States Department of Interior et al
as 1:2012cv00583
Defendant:
United States Department of Interior , United States Bureau of Reclamation , Ken Salazar and others
Plaintiff:
Friant Water Authority and Lower Tule River Irrigation District
Unknown:
Natural Resources Defense Council
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. DOI, et al
as 11-17199
Plaintiff - Appellant:
TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL AUTHORITY
Defendant - Appellee:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION and others
Intervenor-Defendant - Appellee:
SAN LUIS & DELTA MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY and WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. United States Department of the Interior et al
as 2:2010at00181
Plaintiff:
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority and Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
Defendant:
United States Department of the Interior, Kenneth Lee Salazar, United States Bureau of Reclamation. and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. US Dept. of Interior, et al
as 2:2010cv00357
Plaintiff:
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority and Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
Defendant:
United States Department of the Interior, Kenneth Lee Salazar, United States Bureau of Reclamation and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702 Administrative Procedure Act
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority v. US Dept. of Interior, et al
as 1:2010cv00712
Plaintiff:
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
Defendant:
United States Department of the Interior , Kenneth Lee Salazar , United States Bureau of Reclamation and others
Intervenor_defendant:
San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 702
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.
