Cases 41 - 50 of 93
Matthew Grace, et al v. DC, et al
as 16-7067
Amicus Curiae:
Everytown for Gun Safety, State of Montana, State of Hawaii and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Peter Newsham, in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department, Cathy L. Lanier, in her official capacity as Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department and District of Columbia
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Matthew Grace and Pink Pistols
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC. et al
as 1:2016cv00199
Plaintiff:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OF ALASKA and others
Defendant:
HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC. , HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1345
State of West Virginia, et al v. EPA, et al
as 15-1399
Petitioner:
State of West Virginia, State of Texas, State of Alabama and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Movant-Intervenor For Petitioner:
Lignite Energy Council and Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition
Movant-Intervenor For Respondent:
Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. and State of Minnesota, By and through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
State of West Virginia, et al v. EPA, et al
as 15-1399
Petitioner:
State of West Virginia, State of Texas, State of Alabama and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Intervenor:
Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition, Calpine Corporation, Lignite Energy Council and others
Amicus Curiae:
Technological Innovation Experts, Nicholas Ashford, M. Granger Morgan, Edward S. Rubin, and Margaret Taylor, Carbon Capture and Storage Scientists, Roger Aines, Sally Benson, S. Julio Friedmann, Jon Gibbins, Raghubir Gupta, Howard Herzog, Susan Hovorka, Meagan Mauter, Ah-Hyung (Alissa) Park, Gary Rochelle and Jennifer Wilcox and Saskatchew Power Corporation
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
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 and Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
In re: State of West Virginia, et al
as 15-1277
In Re - Petitioner:
In re: State of West Virginia, State of Alabama, State of Arkansas and others
:
State of Florida, et al v. EPA, et al
as 15-1267
Petitioner:
State of Florida, State of Alabama, State of Arizona and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy, Administrator
DAY v. STATE OF OHIO
as 1:2015cv00597
Plaintiff:
DWAYNE L. DAY
Defendant:
STATE OF OHIO
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1983
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION et al v. SYSCO CORPORATION et al
as 1:2015cv00256
Defendant:
SYSCO CORPORATION, USF HOLDING CORP. and US FOODS, INC.
Plaintiff:
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA and others
Interested Party:
DISTRIBUTION MARKET ADVANTAGE, CHENEY BROTHERS, INC., CULVER FRANCHISING SYSTEM, INC. and others
3Rd Party Defendant:
HPSI PURCHASING SERVICES
Petitioner:
XYZ CORPORATION, FOODBUY, LLC and COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.
Amicus Curiae:
PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.
Intervenor:
REINHART FOODSERVICE, L.L.C. and SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 53 b Federal Trade Commission Act
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.
