Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Clervrain v. Baker, et al
as 20-2003
Defendant / Appellee:
CHARLES D. BAKER, WILLIAM F. GALVIN, JOHN SANDWEG, in his individual capacity and others
Plaintiff / Appellant:
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN
Reade, Jr. v. Galvin
as 16-1555
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM FREDERICK READE, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
WILLIAM F. GALVIN, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Boston Taxi Owners Association, et al v. Evan
as 16-1412
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BOSTON TAXI OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RAPHAEL OPHIR and JOSEPH PIERRE
Defendant:
CITY OF BOSTON, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and others
Defendant - Appellant:
WILLIAM EVANS, Boston Police Commissioner
Interested Party:
STEVAN JOHNSON
Reade, Jr. v. Galvin, et al
as 12-2406
Plaintiff - Appellant:
WILLIAM FREDERICK READE, JR.
Defendant - Appellee:
WILLIAM F. GALVIN and MARTHA COAKLEY
Goldstein v. Galvin
as 12-2184
Plaintiff - Appellant:
PHILLIP GOLDSTEIN
Defendant - Appellee:
WILLIAM F. GALVIN, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Barr, et al v. Galvin
as 09-2426
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BOB BARR, WAYNE A. ROOT, LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MASSACHUSETTS and others
Defendant - Appellant:
WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Barr, et al v. Galvin
as 08-2419
Plaintiff - Appellee:
BOB BARR, WAYNE A. ROOT, LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF MASSACHUSETTS and others
Defendant - Appellant:
WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Simmons, et al v. Galvin, et al
as 08-1569
Plaintiff - Appellee/Cross-Appellant:
PAUL SIMMONS, PEDRO VALENTIN, MARCOS NARANJO and others
Defendant - Appellant/Cross-Appellee:
WILLIAM F. GALVIN
:
and
Simmons, et al v. Galvin, et al
as 08-8004
Plaintiff - Respondent:
PAUL SIMMONS, PEDRO VALENTIN and DENNIS J. BELDOTTI
Plaintiff - Appellee:
MARCOS NARANJO
Defendant - Petitioner:
WILLIAM F. GALVIN
:
and
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.
