Cases 21 - 30 of 50
In re: Polar Bear Endangered Specie
as 11-5223
In Re:
In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation - MDL 1993
Plaintiff - Appellant:
State of Alaska
Plaintiff - Appellee:
American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Mining Association and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Dirk Kempthorne, H. Dale Hall, United States Fish and Wildlife Service and others
Intervenor For Defendant - Appellee:
Alaska Oil And Gas Association, Edison Electric Institute, Humane Society Of The United States and others
Strahan v. Bowles, et al
as 11-1822
Plaintiff - Appellant:
RICHARD MAX STRAHAN
Plaintiff:
JEREMY SHUGAR
Defendant - Appellee:
PAUL DIODATI, Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, MARY GRIFFIN, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game and IAN A. BOWLES, Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Defendant:
CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES, a/k/a Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies and CHARLES MAYO
Interested Party:
RICHARD DELANEY, PROVINCETOWN CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES, FREDERICK O'REGAN and others
ASPCA, et al v. Ringling Bros, Barnum & Bailey, et al
as 10-7021
Plaintiff - Appellee:
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Fund For Animals and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus
Defendant - Appellant:
Feld Entertainment, Inc.
ASPCA, et al v. Ringling Bros, Barnum & Bailey, et al
as 10-7007
Plaintiff - Appellant:
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Fund For Animals and others
Defendant - Appellee:
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus and Feld Entertainment, Inc.
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS et al v. FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
as 1:2003cv02006
Plaintiff:
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS , ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE , FUND FOR ANIMALS and others
Defendant:
RINGLING BROTHERS AND BARNUM & BAILEY CIRCUS and FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
Cause Of Action: 16 U.S.C. ยง 1538 Endangered Species Act
Robert Hoad, I, et al v. Humane Society of the United S, et al
as 09-56337
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT ALAN HOAD, I, KARIN ANNE HOAD, SCHOOL IN THE CLOUDS ASSISI, a California corporation and others
Defendant - Appellee:
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, a national corporation, HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, an international corporation, WILDLIFE REHABILITATION CENTER, THE FUND FOR ANIMALS, a corporate affiliate and partner and others
Robert Hoad, et al v. Humane Society of the United S, et al
as 09-55795
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT ALAN HOAD, I, KARIN ANNE HOAD, SCHOOL IN THE CLOUDS ASSISI, a California corporation and others
Defendant - Appellee:
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, a national corporation, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, a California corporation, HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL, an international corporation and others
Hoad et al v. Human Society Of The United States et al
as 3:2009cv00338
Plaintiff:
Robert Hoad, Karin Hoad, School In The Clouds assisi and others
Defendant:
Human Society Of The United States, The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society International and others
Cause Of Action: Diversity
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals et al v. Feld Entertainment, Inc.
as 6:2008mc00070
Plaintiff:
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, Fund for Animals and others
Defendant:
Feld Entertainment, Inc.
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL et al v. KEMPTHORNE et al
as 1:2008cv00881
Plaintiff:
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL and SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION
Defendant:
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, H. DALE HALL and U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Movant:
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE and others
Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
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.
