Cases 1 - 10 of 15
Energy Michigan, Inc., et al v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al
as 23-1324
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ENERGY MICHIGAN, INC. and ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY
Defendant:
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Cross Appellant:
DANIEL C. SCRIPPS, TREMAINE L. PHILLIPS and KATHERINE L. PERETICK
Intervenor:
CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY
Energy Michigan, Inc., et al v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al
as 23-1323
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ENERGY MICHIGAN, INC. and ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY
Defendant:
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DANIEL C. SCRIPPS, TREMAINE L. PHILLIPS and others
Intervenor / Appellee:
CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY
Energy Michigan, Inc., et al v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al
as 23-1280
Plaintiff / Appellant:
ENERGY MICHIGAN, INC. and ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESSES ADVOCATING TARIFF EQUITY
Defendant / Appellee:
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Cross Appellant:
DANIEL C. SCRIPPS, TREMAINE L. PHILLIPS and KATHERINE L. PERETICK
Intervenor / Appellee:
CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY
David Schied v. United States, et al
as 21-2809
Plaintiff / Appellant:
David Schied, one of the Sovereign American People, a totally and permanently disabled RECENT QUAD-AMPUTEE, CRIME VICTIM, Common Law and Civil Rights sui juris GRIEVANT/CLAIMANT/BENEFICIARY (BENEFICIARY/RELATOR)
Defendant / Appellee:
United States of America, Donald Trump, in his public capacity as former U.S. PRESIDENT for the UNITED STATES, Denise Paige Hood, in her private capacity and public capacity as "chief judge" for the USDCEDM and others
Energy Michigan, Inc. et al v. Michigan Public Service Commission et al
as 2:2020cv12521
Defendant:
Tremaine L. Phillips, Sally A. Talberg, Michigan Public Service Commission and others
Plaintiff:
Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity and Energy Michigan, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Crawford v. Stephenson et al
as 2:2016cv10218
Plaintiff:
Anitra Elaine Crawford
Defendant:
Randall Stephenson, AT&T, Southfield OCC Library and others
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2012cv12704
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Mingo v. Detroit, City of et al
as 2:2007cv15208
Plaintiff:
Gwendolyn Mingo, Brush Park Citizens District Council and Coordinating Council for Community Re-Development
Defendant:
Detroit, City of, Washington Mutual, Crosswinds and others
Cause Of Action: No cause code entered
Michigan Bell Telephone Compan v. J. Lark, et al
as 07-2469
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba Michigan Bell Telephone Co., AT&T Michigan
Intervenor - Appellant:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, TALK AMERICA INC. and XO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
Intervenor:
MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. and TDS METROCOM, LLC
Defendant:
J. PETER LARK, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals, LAURA CHAPPELLE, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals and MONICA MARTINEZ, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals
Amicus Curiae:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michigan Bell Telephone Compan v. Laura Chappelle, et al
as 07-2473
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, dba AT&T Michigan
Defendant - Appellant:
LAURA CHAPPELLE, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals, J. PETER LARK, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals and MONICA MARTINEZ, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Michigan Public Service Commission and not as individuals
Intervenor:
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, TALK AMERICA INC., MCLEODUSA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. and others
Amicus Curiae:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
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.
