Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Windom v. Brady et al
as 5:2019cv02045
Defendant:
Mitch McConnell, Alan C. Nelson, Dick Cheney and others
Plaintiff:
I & O Publishing Co., Neo-Tech Research Writing Center and Cameron O. Windom
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
West Virginia Coal Association v. EPA, et al
as 15-1422
Petitioner:
West Virginia Coal Association
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency and Regina A. McCarthy, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Amicus Curiae For Respondent:
William K. Reilly and William D. Ruckelshaus
Movant-Amicus Curiae For Petitioner:
Philip Zoebisch
LG&E and KU Energy LLC v. EPA
as 15-1418
Petitioner:
LG&E and KU Energy LLC
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
Amicus Curiae For Respondent:
William K. Reilly and William D. Ruckelshaus
Movant-Amicus Curiae For Petitioner:
Philip Zoebisch
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 Oklahoma, et al v. EPA
as 15-1364
Not Yet Classified:
Catholic Climate Covenant, ; Catholic Rural Life; Evangelical Environmental Network; National Council of Churches USA; Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life; Church World Service; Union of Reform Judaism; Women of Reform Judaism; National Bapt, Don J. Easterbrook, Gordon J. Fulks and others
Amicus Curiae:
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Loggers Association of Northern California, Boulder County, CO and others
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
Petitioner:
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter
Zomolosky v. Kullman et al
as 1:2013cv00094
Plaintiff:
Robert Zomolosky
Defendant:
Ellen Kullman, Lois D. Juliber, Curtis J. Crawford and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Swords v. Mulva et al
as 1:2011cv01250
Plaintiff:
Patricia Swords
Defendant:
James J. Mulva, Kenneth M. Duberstein, Ruth R. Harkin and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
Freedman v. Mulva et al
as 1:2011cv00686
Plaintiff:
Robert Freedman
Defendant:
James J. Mulva , Kenneth M. Duberstein , Ruth R. Harkin and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 78
Chamber of Commerce of the US, et al v. EPA
as 09-1237
Petitioner:
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and National Automobile Dealers Association
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
Intervenor For Respondent:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Environment California and others
Amicus Curiae For Petitioner:
Pacific Legal Foundation
Amicus Curiae For Respondent:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sempra Energy, Charles E. Frank and others
State of California v. EPA
as 08-1178
Petitioner:
State of California, by and through Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the State of California, the California Air Resources Board, and Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General of the State of California
Respondent:
Environmental Protection Agency
Intervenor For Petitioner:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Intervenor For Respondent:
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. and National Automobile Dealers Association
Amicus Curiae For Petitioner:
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), National Association of Counties, National League of Cities and others
Amicus Curiae For Respondent:
Michael A. Cox, Michigan Attorney General, American Petroleum Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America 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.
