Cases
Cases 41 - 50 of 697
Dietz v. Yankton Community Center et al
as 4:2023cv04169
Petitioner: Zachary Carson Dietz
Respondent: Yankton Community Center and The Attorney General for the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
In re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation
as 1:2021md03010
Plaintiff: Associated Newspapers Ltd., Mail Media, Inc., Emmerich Newspapers, Incorporated and others
Defendant: Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Facebook Inc. and others
Interpleader: State of Louisiana and State of South Carolina
Interested Party: The Nation Company, L.P., Genius Media Group, Inc., Mikula Web Solutions, Inc. and others
Amicus Curiae: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 23 Media Organizations
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 2 Antitrust Litigation
American Lung Association, et al v. EPA, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 19-1140
Respondent: Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency and Jane Nishida, Acting Administrator
Petitioner: American Lung Association and American Public Health Association
Intervenor: State of Kansas, Phil Bryant, Governor of the State of Mississippi, State of Texas and others
Amicus Curiae: City of Portland, Debra A. Haaland, Michael Oppenheimer and others
Abdo v. South Dakota State Penitentiary et al
as 4:2023cv04194
Petitioner: John David Abdo, Jr.
Respondent: South Dakota State Penitentiary, The Attorney General for the State of South Dakota and Teresa Bittinger
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Smith v. City of Yankton et al
as 4:2023cv04174
Petitioner: Eric Smith
Respondent: City of Yankton, State of South Dakota, First Judicial Circuit Court and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights
K.C. v. THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA, et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 1:2023cv00595
Plaintiff: K. C., NATHANIEL CLAWSON, BETH CLAWSON and others
Defendant: THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDIANA PROFESSIONAL LICENSING AGENCY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA and others
Amicus Curiae: STATE OF ARKANSAS, State of Alabama, STATE OF FLORIDA and others
Interested Party: GENDERNEXUS, INC. and GENDER EXPANSIVE KIDS & COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nathan Chase v. Dan Sullivan, et al
as 23-3007
Petitioner / Appellant: Nathan Chase
Respondent / Appellee: Warden Dan Sullivan, South Dakota State Penitentiary and Attorney General for the State of South Dakota
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
Davis v. Bettinger et al We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 4:2023cv04125
Petitioner: Deaver D. Davis
Respondent: Warden Teresa Bettinger and Attorney General for the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Sieler v. Bittinger We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 4:2023cv04119
Petitioner: Ricky Jay Sieler
Respondent: Warden Teresa Bittinger and Attorney General for the State of South Dakota
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

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.


Why Is My Information Online?