Cases 21 - 30 of 46
State of Texas et al v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al
as 3:2021cv00065
Plaintiff:
State of North Dakota, State of Nebraska, State of Ohio and others
Defendant:
United States Of America, Jennifer Granholm, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Energy, Scott De La Vega, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Interior and others
Cause Of Action: 05 U.S.C. § 551
Ward v. State of Texas
as 4:2020cv01065
Plaintiff:
Robert Lewis Ward
Defendant:
State of Texas, State of Missouri, State of New Mexico and others
Intervenor Plaintiff:
Rondale R. Wright
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
State Of Texas et al v. Rising Eagle Capital Group LLC et al
as 4:2020cv02021
Plaintiff:
State of Arkansas, State of North Carolina, State Of Texas and others
Defendant:
John C Spiller, II, JSQUARED TELECOM LLC, Jakob A Mears and others
Cause Of Action: 47 U.S.C. § 0227
In re: Gregg Abbott, et al
as 20-50264
Amicus Curiae:
STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF KENTUCKY, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA and others
Respondent:
SOUTHWESTERN WOMEN'S SURGERY CENTER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE, ROBIN WALLACE, M.D., M.A.S. and others
Petitioner:
KATHERINE A. THOMAS, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Texas Board of Nursing, PHIL WILSON, in his official capacity as Acting Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, In re: GREGG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas and others
FTC, et al v. Educare Centre Services, Inc., et al
as 20-50113
Defendant / Appellant:
RELIEF DEFENDANT 9896988 CANADA, INCORPORATED and MOHAMMAD SOUHEIL, indvidually and as an owner, officer, member, and/or manager of Prolink Vision, A.R.L., also known as Mohammed Souheil, also known as Mike Souheil
Plaintiff / Appellee:
STATE OF OHIO EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVE YOST and FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Madera Merchant Services, LLC et al
as 3:2019cv00195
Defendant:
Victor Rodriguez, Bruce Woods, Madera Merchant Services, LLC and others
Not Yet Classified:
Susan M. Forbes
Plaintiff:
State of Ohio ex rel. Attorney General Dave Yost and Federal Trade Commission
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045
Federal Trade Commission et al v. Educare Centre Services, Inc. et al
as 3:2019cv00196
Defendant:
Mohammad Souheil, Wissam Abedel Jilal, Mohammed Souheil and others
Plaintiff:
State of Ohio ex rel. Attorney General Dave Yost and Federal Trade Commission
Not Yet Classified:
Robb Evans & Associates LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0045
State of Texas v. USA
as 19-10011
Plaintiff / Appellee:
STATE OF TENNESSEE, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, STATE OF LOUISIANA and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellant:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF MINNESOTA and others
Defendant / Appellant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and others
Intervenor:
STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF IOWA, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and others
Amicus Curiae:
STATE OF OHIO, 483 FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBAL NATIONS, ILYA SOMIN and others
Not Classified By Court:
FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW
State of Nevada, et al v. U.S. Department of Labor, et al
as 17-41130
Plaintiff - Appellee:
STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF ALABAMA and others
Defendant - Appellant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MARY ZIEGLER, in her official capacity as Assistant Administrator for Policy of the Wage and Hour Division and others
Movant - Appellant:
TEXAS AFL-CIO
State of Nevada, et al v. LABR, et al
as 16-41606
Plaintiff - Appellee:
STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF ALABAMA and others
Defendant - Appellant:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, In his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and others
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.
