Cases 1 - 6 of 6
Robert Sarvis v. Charles Judd
as 15-1162
Plaintiff - Appellant:
ROBERT C. SARVIS
Plaintiff:
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, WILLIAM HAMMER, JEFFREY CARSON and others
Defendant - Appellee:
CHARLES E. JUDD, in his individual and official capacities as member of the Virginia State Board of Elections, DONALD PALMER, in his individual and official capacities as member of the Virginia State Board of Elections and KIMBERLY T. BOWERS, in her individual and official capacities as member of the Virginia State Board of Elections
Sarvis et al v. Judd et al
as 3:2014cv00479
Plaintiff:
Robert C. Sarvis , Libertarian Party of Virginia , William Hammer and others
Defendant:
Charles E. Judd , Donald Palmer and Kimberly T. Bowers
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Libertarian Party of Virginia v. Charles Judd
as 12-1996
Plaintiff - Appellee:
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA and DARRYL BONNER
Defendant - Appellant:
CHARLES E. JUDD, in his official capacity as member of the Virginia State Board of Elections, KIMBERLY T. BOWERS, in her official capacity as member of the Virginia State Board of Elections and DON PALMER, in his offical capacity as member of the Virginia State Board of Elections
Libertarian Party of Virginia et al v. Judd et al
as 3:2012cv00367
Plaintiff:
Libertarian Party of Virginia and Darryl Bonner
Defendant:
Charles Judd , Kimberly Bowers and Don Palmer
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Libertarian Party of Virginia v. VA State Board of Election
as 10-2175
Plaintiff - Appellant:
LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA, MATTHEW MOSLEY, WILBUR WOOD and others
Defendant - Appellee:
VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Libertarian Party of Virginia et al v. Virginia State Board of Elections
as 1:2010cv00615
Plaintiff:
Libertarian Party of Virginia , Matthew Mosley , Wilbur Wood and others
Defendant:
Virginia State Board of Elections
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
