Cases
Cases 41 - 50 of 1,032
Tucker v. State of Nebraska We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 8:2023cv00552
Petitioner: Carlos Antonio Tucker
Respondent: State of Nebraska
Interested Party: Nebraska Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
State of Texas v. USA
as 23-40653
Plaintiff / Appellee: State of Texas, State of Alabama, State of Arkansas and others
Defendant / Appellant: United States of America, Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Troy Miller, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and others
Intervenor Defendant / Appellant: Maria Rocha, Jose Magana-Salgado, Nanci J. Palacios Godinez and others
Intervenor: State of New Jersey
State of Utah v. Su
as 23-11097
Plaintiff / Appellant: State of Utah, State of Texas, Commonwealth of Virginia and others
Defendant / Appellee: Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor and United States Department of Labor
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., et al v. Merrick B. Garland, et al
as 23-3230
Plaintiff / Appellant: Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., State of West Virginia, State of North Dakota and others
Defendant / Appellee: Merrick B. Garland, in his Official Capacity, as Attorney General of the United States, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, The and Steven Dettelbach, in his Official Capacity, as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Appellant: Members of Congress
People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al
as 4:2023cv05448
Plaintiff: The People of the State of California, People of the State of California, Commonwealth of Kentucky and others
Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc., Instagram, LLC, Meta Payments, Inc. and others
Interested Party: Conghua Yan
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
In re: Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation
as 3:2021md02981
Defendant: Alphabet Inc., Google Payment Corp., Google Commerce Limited and others
Plaintiff: Jared Stark, Ashly Esquivel, Robert Wing and others
Counter Defendant: Epic Games, Inc., Match Group, LLC and Humor Rainbow, Inc.
Counter Claimant: Google LLC and Google Asia Pacific PTE. Limited
Not Classified By Court: Activision Blizzard, Inc., Niantic, Inc., Big Fish Games and others
Amicus Curiae: American Antitrust Institute and Economists Supporting Dr. Rysman as Proposed Amici
3Rd Party Defendant: Riot Games, Inc.
Interested Party: Valve Corporation, Nintendo of America Inc., Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit and others
Petitioner: Amazon.com LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1 Antitrust Litigation
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 4:2023cv03211
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 8:2023cv00489
Plaintiff: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination
Mcswine v. State of Nebraska We have downloadable decisions or orders for this case
as 8:2023cv00488
Petitioner: Fredrick E. Mcswine
Respondent: State of Nebraska
Interested Party: Nebraska Attorney General
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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

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?