Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
|
|
- Kristian Manning
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA North Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc.; Galegher Farms, Inc.; Brian Gerrits; Breeze Dairy Group, LLC; Paul Ivesdal; North Dakota Pork Council; Bill Price; and Global Beef Consultants, LLC, Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE vs. Wayne Stenehjem, in his official Capacity as Attorney General of North Dakota, Case No. 1:16-cv-137 Defendant, Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America North Dakota Division, d/b/a North Dakota Farmers Union, Movant for Intervention, Dakota Resource Council, a North Dakota Nonprofit Corporation, Movant for Intervention. Before the Court is a motion to intervene filed by the Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America North Dakota Division ( Farmers Union on October 12, See Docket No. 30. The Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion on October 24, See Docket No. 49. The Defendant filed a notice of non-objection on October 24, See Docket No. 48. Farmers Union filed a reply brief on October 31, See Docket No. 54. Also before the Court is a motion to intervene filed by the Dakota Resource Council ( DRC on October 17, See Docket No. 35. The Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to 1
2 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 11 the motion on October 27, See Docket No. 51. The Defendant filed a notice of objection to the motion on October 27, See Docket No. 53. The DRC filed a reply brief on November 7, See Docket No. 55. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted. I. BACKGROUND On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Chapter of the North Dakota Century Code. Chapter is officially known as the Corporate or Limited Liability Company Farming law ( Corporate Farming Law. Chapter protects family farms by making unlawful, with some exceptions, corporate farming and corporate ownership of farms. The Plaintiffs contend Chapter violates the Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 17, The Defendant, Wayne Stenehjem, in his official capacity as Attorney General of North Dakota, ( State filed an answer on October 11, On October 12, 2016, the Farmers Union filed a motion to intervene. The DRC filed a motion to intervene on October 17, Plaintiff North Dakota Farm Bureau ( Farm Bureau is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of North Dakota, with its principle place of business in Fargo, North Dakota. The Farm Bureau's voluntary membership consists of more than 26,000 farm, ranch, and rural families residing in North Dakota, whose agricultural, social, and economic interests it strives to advance. Plaintiff Galegher Farms, Incorporated is a farming corporation organized under the laws of North Dakota, with its principle place of business in Thompson, North Dakota. Galegher Farms currently meets the kinship requirements of Chapter but contends it may have difficulty 2
3 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 11 doing so in the future as extended family members who do not meet the kinship requirements have expressed an interest in joining the business. Plaintiff Brian Gerrits is an individual who resides in De Pere, Wisconsin. Gerrits is a member of a Wisconsin limited liability company, Breeze Dairy Group, LLC, that engages in dairy farming in Wisconsin. Chapter prohibits Gerrits and the Wisconsin limited liability company he is a member of from expanding into North Dakota. Plaintiff Breeze Dairy Group, LLC ( Breeze Dairy is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin. Breeze Dairy is a dairy farming operation in Wisconsin with over one hundred employees. Chapter prohibits Breeze Dairy from expanding into North Dakota. Plaintiff Paul Ivesdal is an individual who resides in Edmore, North Dakota. Ivesdal is a partner in North Dakota Sow Center, LLLP, which owns and operates multiple isowean facilities. Ivesdal contends Chapter prohibits him from utilizing the corporate business structure he would prefer. Plaintiff North Dakota Pork Council is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of North Dakota. The North Dakota Pork Council promotes the interests of pork producers and provides pork producers with educational resources and services which enhance profitability. The North Dakota Pork Council contends Chapter interferes with its ability to fulfill its mission. Plaintiff Bill Price is an individual who resides in Center, North Dakota. Price is a farmer and rancher involved in multiple farming and ranching operations in North Dakota, including the Price Cattle Ranch which is organized as a limited liability partnership. Price and the Price Cattle Ranch contend they would prefer to operate as a corporation or limited liability company but are 3
4 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 4 of 11 prohibited by Chapter from doing so. Plaintiff Global Beef Consultants, LLC ( Global Beef is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of North Dakota. Global Beef provides cattle consulting and export services, often to foreign countries, and owns and operates two ranches in Kazakhstan. Global Beef contends it has been prohibited by Chapter from establishing its base of operations in North Dakota. Farmers Union is a nonprofit organization founded in 1927 to help create and maintain security on the land for farm families. Farmers Union is the largest general farm organization in North Dakota, with 45,500 member families. Farmers Union works to advance family farms and ranches and the quality of life for North Dakotans through member advocacy, educational programs, cooperative initiatives, and insurance services. In the early 1930s, Farmers Union drafted the language for what would ultimately become North Dakota's Corporate Farming Law through initiated measure in Farmers Union has long been committed to preserving and has actively defended North Dakota s Corporate Farming Law which it sees as the foundation of family farms, rural communities, the state s agrarian heritage, and stewardship of natural resources. The DRC is a nonprofit organization formed in 1978 with the purpose of protecting North Dakota s rural communities, agricultural economy, soil, land, and water. The DRC works for preservation of family farms, enforcement of corporate farming laws, soil and water conservation, regulation of coal mining and oil and gas development, protection of groundwater and clean air, renewable energy, and sound management of solid and toxic wastes. The DRC consists of its approximately 1,000 members, more than half of whom are farmers and ranchers. Since the DRC was founded, its members have repeatedly listed the viability of North Dakota s family farms as a 4
5 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 5 of 11 foundational issue, and advocacy, education, and enforcement of North Dakota s Corporate Farming Law as central to DRC s organizational purpose and existence. Farmers Union and the DRC seek intervention as a matter of right, or alternatively, permissive intervention, under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs are opposed to intervention by Farmers Union and the DRC. The State is not opposed to Farmers Union s motion to intervene, but is opposed to the motion to intervene filed by the DRC. II. LEGAL DISCUSSION Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs intervention by third parties. Farmers Union and the DRC seek intervention as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a. Alternatively, they seek permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b. It is undisputed that Farmers Union and the DRC have standing. Rule 24(a(2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for intervention as a matter of right by an interested third party who, on timely motion: claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a(2. The Eighth Circuit requires that an application for intervention must satisfy the following tri-partite test in order to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a(2: 1 the party must have a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation; 2 that interest must be one that might be impaired by the disposition of the litigation; and 3 the interest must not be adequately protected by the existing parties. United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, (8th Cir It 5
6 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 6 of 11 is well-established that Rule 24 is to be given a liberal construction. Courts must assess a motion to intervene in a light most favorable to the prospective intervenor, construe the motion in favor of the prospective intervenor, and accept all material allegations in the motion as true. Nat l Parks Conservation Ass n v. United States Envtl. Prot. Assoc., 759 F.3d 969, (8th Cir It is undisputed that both Farmers Union and the DRC have filed timely motions and have a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation that may be impaired by the disposition of the lawsuit. The only disputed issue is whether the State will adequately represent the interests of Farmers Union and the DRC. A prospective intervenor bears the burden of showing that [its] interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties. Chiglo v. City of Preston, 104 F.3d 185, 187 (8th Cir A prospective intervenor typically carries only a minimal burden of showing that existing parties do not adequately represent its interests. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Minn., 989 F.2d 994, (8th Cir. 1993; Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295, 1303 (8th Cir However, a prospective intervenor has a heavier burden when an existing party has an obligation to represent its interests. Mille Lacs, 989 F.2d at Under the concept of parens patriae (parent of the country, if an arm or agency of the government is a party in litigation involving a matter of sovereign interest, the government is presumed to represent the interest of all its citizens. Id. at 1000; Nat l Parks, 759 F.3d at 976. The parens patriae presumption only applies to the extent the prospective intervenor s interests coincide with the public interest. Nat l Parks, 759 F.3d at 977. If the prospective intervenor stands to lose or gain from the lawsuit in a way different than the public at large, the parens patriae presumption does not apply. Chiglo, 104 F.3d at 188. Even when such a presumption of adequate representation arises on this basis, it may be rebutted by showing that the 6
7 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 7 of 11 prospective intervenor s interest cannot be subsumed within the shared interest of state. Mille Lacs, 989 F.2d at ; Mausolf, 85 F.3d at In this case, the interests of Farmers Union are narrower than the public interest and cannot be subsumed within the broad public interest represented by the State. The State and Farmers Union share the common legal goal of protecting North Dakota s Corporate Farming Law, but their interests in the law are different. The State has a broad interest in protecting its laws from federal constitutional challenges and must represent the varied interests of all its citizens including rural, urban, farm, non-farm, Native American, corporate, non-profit, conservation, coal, oil and many more. In addition, the State agrees that Farmers Union should be allowed to intervene and essentially concedes it is unable to adequately represent the interests of Farmers Union. Farmers Union is North Dakota s largest farm organization and has a unique interest in defending a law it drafted over 80 years ago. The law was first enacted through an initiated measure in 1932 and has been amended a number of times since then. Farmers Union, as the law s leading supporter, has been heavily involved in protecting the law since its enactment and has a deep and thorough knowledge of the law s legislative history. Farmers Union, as the law s primary advocate, will be able rely on its institutional knowledge regarding the reasons for and purpose of the statute garnered over its more than eighty years of active support of the law to vigorously defend it. See Coalition of Ariz./N.M. Counties for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dep t of Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 843 (10th Cir (allowing a primary advocate for the Mexican Spotted Owl to intervene to defend the decision of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list it as threatened because the intervenor would vigorously defend the decision. In addition, Farmers Union members have personal interests in the outcome of this litigation, which they see as jeopardizing their economic, 7
8 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 8 of 11 social, and cultural interests and welfare. While Farmers Union has consistently supported and defended the law since 1932, the State s position regarding the law has varied. For instance, in 2015, the Governor and Agriculture Commissioner supported certain exemptions for hog and dairy operations which Farmers Union vigorously opposed and successfully referred. Clearly, the interests of the State and Farmers Union are not shared. Resolving the Plaintiffs constitutional challenge will likely require assessing whether any burden the law imposes on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970 (citing Huron Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U.S. 440, 443 (1960; see also Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1270 (8th Cir ( legitimate local interests that cannot be advanced by any other means can save a law from a dormant commerce clause challenge. This analysis will require considering information which Farmers Union and its members have a deep knowledge of and decades of experience defending. Courts recognize that where a proposed intervenor can supplement the defense of a challenged law, intervention is allowed to further a more informed adjudication. Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle, 561 F.2d 904, (D.C. Cir Finally, permitting Farmers Union to intervene will assist the Court in deciding the claims raised in this declaratory judgment action. The Farm Bureau and Farmers Union are the two largest farm organizations in North Dakota. The Farm Bureau is opposed to the Corporate Farming Law while Farmers Union supports it. Much is at stake and both should be heard. Like Farmers Union, the DRC has unique interests which arguably cannot be adequately represented by the State. Although the State maintains it can adequately represent the interests of the DRC, it provides little explanation as to why the DRC should be treated differently than Farmers 8
9 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 9 of 11 Union whose intervention it supports. One inference that can be drawn from the State s opposition is that the interests of the State and the DRC are in fact very different and cannot be adequately represented by the State. DRC s members are predominantly rural family farmers and ranchers with an interest in protecting their land, air, water, rural communities, and North Dakota s agricultural economy. The DRC and its members stand to be directly impacted by the litigation in ways different from the public at large. First, the DRC s organizational interests are at stake. These organizational interests including its membership and direction of the organization are very different from those of the rest of the public. Second, individual DRC members have property interests at stake. Several DRC members are concerned that they will lose their farms and their livelihoods if the Corporate Farming Law is struck down. Another member is concerned that it will be more difficult to maintain his farm s organic certification if the law is struck down. These are specific harms that are not shared by the public at large, and are not subsumed by the State s interests. The DRC s interests are clearly narrower than the broad interests of the State. The State cannot focus on the narrower interests of family farmers and ranchers who support the Corporate Farming Law because if it did so it would be doing a disservice to its other citizens who are not farmers and ranchers and who do not live in rural communities. The State must balance the interests of all its citizens, including those who oppose the law. In addition, the DRC has rebutted the parens patriae presumption that the State will adequately represent the interests of the DRC. As explained above in relation to Farmers Union, the State has not always vigorously defended the law. The DRC worked hard to defeat the 2015 legislation signed by the Governor and promoted by the Agriculture Commissioner which exempted 9
10 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 10 of 11 certain hog and dairy operations from the law. After the 2015 legislation became law, the DRC, along with Farmers Union, worked to challenge the law through the referendum process. That referendum was successful with nearly 76% of the voters rejecting the newly enacted exemptions. Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the DRC to argue the State will not adequately represent its interests. Further, North Dakota s Corporate Farming Law is lengthy and complicated, the result of decades of fine-tuning and tailoring to maintain a ban on corporate farming while allowing limited exemptions for interests that do not adversely affect the purposes for which the law was enacted. Some of these interests include carefully tailored exemptions for industrial use, coal mining, certain family-owned and operated farms, cooperatives, and not-for-profit conservation ownership of land. The Plaintiffs have challenged the Corporate Farming Law as a whole, and the State must balance all of these interests in its defense of the law. The interests of DRC and its members that may be affected by this case are both different and narrower from the broad interests of the State. Finally, in reviewing the DRC s motion to intervene, the Court is cognizant of the liberal construction to be given Rule 24. Nat l Parks, 759 F.3d at The Court agrees with the DRC that its participation would ultimately sharpen[] the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962. Having determined that Farmers Union and the DRC are entitled to intervention as of right, the Court need not address their requests for permissive intervention. 10
11 Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 56 Filed 01/11/17 Page 11 of 11 III. CONCLUSION The Court concludes both Farmers Union and the DRC have satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a(2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the motions to intervene (Docket Nos. 30 and 35 are GRANTED. Farmers Union and the DRC will have seven (7 days from the date of this order to file their respective answers to the Plaintiffs complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 11th day of January, /s/ Daniel L. Hovland Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge United States District Court 11
8:13-cv JFB-TDT Doc # 51 Filed: 10/08/13 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:13-cv-00215-JFB-TDT Doc # 51 Filed: 10/08/13 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ACTIVISION TV, INC., Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE BANCORP, INC.,
More informationCase 4:08-cv CW Document 230 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-CW Document 0 Filed //0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; and GREENPEACE,
More informationCase 2:17-cv WB Document 41 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 41 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et
More informationKansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014
K a n s a s L e g i s l a t i v e R e s e a r c h D e p a r t m e n t Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2014 B-1 Water Litigation B-2 State Water Plan Fund, Kansas Water Authority, and State Water Plan B-3
More informationCase 4:12-cv DLH-CSM Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:12-cv-00058-DLH-CSM Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION Dish Network Service LLC, ) ) ORDER DENYING
More informationShhh: Eighth Circuit Puts Conservationists Intervenor to Bed in Quiet Title Action in North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v.
Volume 27 Issue 2 Article 2 8-1-2016 Shhh: Eighth Circuit Puts Conservationists Intervenor to Bed in Quiet Title Action in North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States Matthew K. Arnold Follow this
More information3:18-cv JMC Date Filed 07/03/18 Entry Number 7 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
3:18-cv-01795-JMC Date Filed 07/03/18 Entry Number 7 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, v. Plaintiff,
More informationPlanned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds
Warning As of: August 21, 2018 1:10 PM Z Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division September 23, 2005, Decided; September
More informationCase 4:18-cv O Document 74 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 879
Case 4:18-cv-00167-O Document 74 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 879 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Applicant, v. Case No. 13-MC-61 FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY, d/b/a Potawatomi Bingo Casino, Respondent.
More informationCase 0:16-cv BB Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2016 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:16-cv-61474-BB Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2016 Page 1 of 5 ANDREA BELLITTO and AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 4:11-cv-00675-CVE-TLW Document 26 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 08/22/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA EASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF ) OKLAHOMA, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 91 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Case 1:16-cv-00103-DLH-CSM Document 91 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Enerplus Resources (USA Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:17-cv ERK-RLM Document 18 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageid>
Case 1:17-cv-04843-ERK-RLM Document 18 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT
Case 4:12-cv-00074-DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 06/07/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA AGAMENV, LLC, aka Dakota Gaming, LLC, Ray Brown, Steven Haynes, vs.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-jgb-sp Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 ROBERT G. DREHER Acting Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice F. PATRICK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORANNA BUMGARNER FELTER, ) et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 1:02 CV 2156 (RWR) ) GALE NORTON, ) Secretary of the Interior, et al. ) ) Defendants.
More informationFEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
954 776 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES have breached the alleged contract to guarantee a loan). The part of Count II of the amended counterclaim that seeks a declaration that the post-termination restrictive
More informationCorporate Farming: How Interpretation of the Commerce Clause is Making Restrictions More Difficult. Jones v. Gale
Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 14 Issue 3 Summer 2007 Article 3 2007 Corporate Farming: How Interpretation of the Commerce Clause is
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DEIRDRE RICHARDSON,
Richardson, Deirdre v. Helgerson, Adam et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DEIRDRE RICHARDSON, v. Plaintiff, ADAM HELGERSON and MONROE COUNTY, OPINION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:14-cv-09281-PSG-SH Document 34 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:422 Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Wendy Hernandez Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for
More informationCase 2:10-cv JES-SPC Document 48 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case 2:10-cv-00106-JES-SPC Document 48 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; SIERRA CLUB; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
More informationCase 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 125 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 0 BATTLE MOUNTAIN BAND of the TE- MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES
More informationREPLY IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE
2:17-cv-13080-PDB-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 01/09/18 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 551 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN KRISTY DUMONT; DANA DUMONT; ERIN BUSK-SUTTON; REBECCA BUSK-SUTTON;
More informationCase 2:12-cv JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-jam-ac Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally recognized
More informationCase 1:13-cv MCA-RHS Document 50 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:13-cv-00639-MCA-RHS Document 50 Filed 07/19/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FRONT RANGE EQUINE RESCUE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00639-MCA-RHS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case:-cv-0-MEJ Document Filed0// Page of 0 CITY OF OAKLAND, v. Northern District of California Plaintiff, ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the United States; MELINDA HAAG, U.S. Attorney for the Northern
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:18-cv-02354-WYD Document 11 Filed 11/13/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02354-WYD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO TRAILS PRESERVATION ALLIANCE,
More information4:07-cv RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
4:07-cv-03101-RGK-CRZ Doc # 92 Filed: 04/15/13 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 696 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RICHARD M. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, C.A. NO. 4:07-CV-3101 v.
More informationCase 1:11-cv NMG Document 53 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:11-cv-12070-NMG Document 53 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KG URBAN ENTERPRISES, LLC Plaintiff, v. DEVAL L. PATRICK, in his official capacity
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOHN WILEY & SONS, LTD., and AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS, Plaintiffs, MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP, and JOHN DOE
More informationCase 2:16-cv SWS Document 19 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 19 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 16 Wayne Stenehjem (Pro Hac Vice Pending) David Garner (Pro Hac Vice Pending) Hope Hogan (Pro Hac Vice Pending) North Dakota Office of the Attorney
More informationCase 1:99-cv EGS Document Filed 09/05/13 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:99-cv-03119-EGS Document 647-1 Filed 09/05/13 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.
More informationCase 1:08-cv SJM Document 26 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:08-cv-00323-SJM Document 26 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; ALLEGHENY DEFENSE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants. 1:13CV861 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
More informationUnited States District Court Central District of California
Case :-cv-0-odw-agr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: O 0 United States District Court Central District of California ARLENE ROSENBLATT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA and THE CITY COUNCIL OF
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Appellate Case: 16-1048 Document: 01019602960 01019602985 Date Filed: 04/14/2016 Page: 1 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit SAFE STREETS ALLIANCE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationCase 2:01-cv JWS Document 237 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cv-000-JWS Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION Plaintiff, :0-cv-000 JWS vs. ORDER AND OPINION PEABODY WESTERN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PRESCOTT DIVISION. Plaintiffs,
Case 3:12-cv-08176-SMM Document 44 Filed 12/04/12 Page 1 of 8 TOM HORNE Attorney General Firm Bar No. 14000 James F. Odenkirk State Bar No. 0013992 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
4:07-cv-03101-RGK-CRZ Doc # 88 Filed: 03/14/13 Page 1 of 17 - Page ID # 669 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA THE VILLAGE OF PENDER, NEBRASKA, et al., Case No. 4:07CV3101
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #18-1085 Document #1725473 Filed: 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS,
More informationCase 6:11-cv CJS Document 76 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendant.
Case 6:11-cv-06004-CJS Document 76 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, -v- SENECA COUNTY, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, Defendant.
More informationCase 2:15-cv SMJ Document 42 Filed 01/09/17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON I. INTRODUCTION
Case :-cv-00-smj Document Filed 0/0/ 0 CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY; and WILD FISH CONSERVANCY, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES FISH
More informationCase 1:06-cv AWI-DLB Document 32 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-0-AWI-DLB Document Filed 0//00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF INYO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ) DIRK
More informationCase 2:15-cv JCC Document 61 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed // Page of THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, ANDREW
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:16-cv-00011-BMM Document 45 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 12 Mark A. Echo Hawk (pro hac vice ECHO HAWK & OLSEN, PLLC 505 Pershing Ave., Suite 100 PO Box 6119 Pocatello, Idaho 83205-6119 Phone: (208 478-1624
More informationCase 5:16-cv EJD Document 22 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-00-ejd Document Filed // Page of Brian Selden SBN Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, California 0 Telephone: +.0.. Facsimile: +.0..00 Chad Readler Pro hac application pending John H. McConnell Boulevard,
More informationCase 2:17-cv GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:17-cv-02582-GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DANIEL S. PENNACHIETTI, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-02582
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :0-cv-00-RSL Document 0 Filed 0/0/0 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 KIMBERLY YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD, et al., Defendants.
More informationELECTRONICALLY FILED 2017 Mar13 PM 4:45 CLERK OF THE SHAWNEE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CASE NUMBER: 2017-CV
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2017 Mar13 PM 4:45 CLERK OF THE SHAWNEE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CASE NUMBER: 2017-CV-000175 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS CNK, INC., a Colorado corporation, and ) ROSS
More informationCase 4:14-cv DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:14-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION EOG RESOURCES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )
More informationCase 5:16-cv M Document 49 Filed 09/13/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:16-cv-01073-M Document 49 Filed 09/13/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BILL G. NICHOLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
More informationCase 1:17-cv DLH-CSM Document 29 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Case 1:17-cv-00202-DLH-CSM Document 29 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Halcón Operating Co., Inc., ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S Plaintiff,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2217 County of Charles Mix, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of South Dakota. * United
More informationCase 1:18-cv DLH-CSM Document 12 Filed 05/07/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Case 1:18-cv-00057-DLH-CSM Document 12 Filed 05/07/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Shingobee Builders, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00057-DLH-CSM v. Plaintiff, North
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No
Case: 10-56971, 04/22/2015, ID: 9504505, DktEntry: 238-1, Page 1 of 21 (1 of 36) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Edward Peruta, et al,, Case No. 10-56971 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION. ' ' Defendants. '
State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company v. Sproull et al Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION JOHNNY R. LEE, as Personal Representative
More informationCase 4:14-cv DLH-CSM Document 68 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Case 4:14-cv-00085-DLH-CSM Document 68 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., now known ) as Whiting Resources Corporation
More informationCase 2:16-cv SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING
Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 63 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 11 REED ZARS Wyo. Bar No. 6-3224 Attorney at Law 910 Kearney Street Laramie, WY 82070 Phone: (307) 760-6268 Email: reed@zarslaw.com KAMALA D.
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY BRANCH 41. v. Case No. 17-CV REPLY BRIEF
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY BRANCH 41 CLEAN WATER ACTION COUNCIL OF NORTHEAST WISCONSIN, FRIENDS OF THE CENTRAL SANDS, MILWAUKEE RIVERKEEPER, and WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Petitioners,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240 JOSEPH CLARK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM AND ) RECOMMENDATION HARRAH S NC CASINO COMPANY,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Prescott Division
Case :0-cv-00-PGR Document Filed 0//0 Page of 0 0 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona SUE A. KLEIN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. Two Renaissance Square 0 North Central
More informationCase 8:14-cv DKC Document 47 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:14-cv-00550-DKC Document 47 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, et al. : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 14-0550
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1679553 Filed: 06/14/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:04cv01032 (JDB JOHN ASHCROFT, in his official capacity as Attorney General of
More informationThe Question of Adequate Representation in the Tyson Court's Denial of Intervention
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 39 Issue 3 Electronic Supplement Article 3 9-4-2012 The Question of Adequate Representation in the Tyson Court's Denial of Intervention Nick Feinstein
More informationCASE 0:17-cv ADM-KMM Document 124 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:17-cv-00562-ADM-KMM Document 124 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Kimberly Watso, individually and on behalf of C.H and C.P., her minor children; and
More informationCase 3:16-cv VC Document 28 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 24
Case :-cv-00-vc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 COLIN O BRIEN, SB No. 0 cobrien@earthjustice.org ADRIENNE BLOCH, SB No. abloch@earthjustice.org HEATHER M. LEWIS, SB No. hlewis@earthjustice.org EARTHJUSTICE
More informationCase 5:14-cv FB Document 13 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Case :14-cv-0028-FB Document 13 Filed 0/21/14 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ALAMO BREWING CO., LLC, v. Plaintiff, OLD 300 BREWING, LLC dba TEXIAN
More informationUnited States ex rel. Steele v. Turn Key Gaming, Inc.
Caution As of: November 11, 2013 9:47 AM EST United States ex rel. Steele v. Turn Key Gaming, Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit December 12, 1997, Submitted ; February 9, 1998,
More informationCase 1:11-cv JCC-JFA Document 7 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Case 1:11-cv-01385-JCC-JFA Document 7 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division LYNDA WISEMAN, Plaintiff, WILLIAM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA MEMORADUM IN SUPPORT OF STATE OF ALASKA S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
DANIEL S. SULLIVAN, Attorney General STEVE DEVRIES, Assistant Attorney General Alaska Department of Law 1031 W. 4 th Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-5255 (phone) (907) 279-8644 (facsimile)
More informationCase 9:13-cv DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
Case 9:13-cv-00057-DWM Document 27 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION FILED MAY 082014 Clerk. u.s District Court District Of Montana
More informationb reme gourt of the i niteb tatee
No. 07-1182 b reme gourt of the i niteb tatee MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE COMMITTEE and AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, V. Petitioners, COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION; COALITION TO DEFEND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case :-cv-00-tor Document Filed 0// UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, INC, a Washington Non-Profit Corporation; and CENTER
More informationCase: 3:13-cv wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:13-cv-00121-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, ) INCORPORATED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
More informationCase 3:16-cv LRH-WGC Document 92 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :-cv-00-lrh-wgc Document Filed // Page of 0 Laura K. Granier, Esq. (NSB ) laura.granier@dgslaw.com 0 W. Liberty Street, Suite 0 Reno, Nevada 0 () -/ () 0- (Tel./Fax) Attorneys for Carlin Resources,
More informationCase 1:13-cv RDM Document 60 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-02007-RDM Document 60 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION OF REPTILE KEEPERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.
More informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-00731-ALM Document 98 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 4746 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 1:08-cv WYD-MJW Document 41 Filed 01/14/2010 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
Case 1:08-cv-01624-WYD-MJW Document 41 Filed 01/14/2010 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 Civil Action No. 08-cv-01624-WYD-MJW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Wiley
More informationCase 1:18-cv DLH-CSM Document 16 Filed 10/01/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Case 1:18-cv-00057-DLH-CSM Document 16 Filed 10/01/18 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Shingobee Builders, Inc, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 1:17-cv-01083-JTN-ESC ECF No. 31 filed 05/04/18 PageID.364 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN JOY SPURR Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:17-cv-01083 Hon. Janet
More informationCase 0:17-cv JJO Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:17-cv-60471-JJO Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 10 GRIFFEN LEE, v. Plaintiff, CHARLES G. McCARTHY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-00422-JRT-LIB Document 15 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Crystal Tiessen, v. Plaintiff, Chrysler Capital, Repossessors, Inc., PAR North America,
More informationCase: 3:07-cv KKC Doc #: 42 Filed: 03/20/08 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: 282
Case: 3:07-cv-00032-KKC Doc #: 42 Filed: 03/20/08 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: 282 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at FRANKFORT ** CAPITAL CASE ** CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationCase 2:12-cv DN-EJF Document 22 Filed 04/24/14 Page 1 of 12
Case 2:12-cv-00275-DN-EJF Document 22 Filed 04/24/14 Page 1 of 12 John Pace (USB 5624) Stewart Gollan (USB 12524) Lewis Hansen Waldo Pleshe Flanders, LLC Utah Legal Clinic 3380 Plaza Way 214 East 500 South
More informationUTAHNS FOR BETTER TRANSP.
UTAHNS FOR BETTER TRANSP. v. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSP. Cite as 295 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2002) 1111 UTAHNS FOR BETTER TRANSPOR- TATION; Ross C. Rocky Anderson, in his official capacity as Mayor of Salt Lake
More informationCase 3:17-cv WHO Document 83 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 14
Case :-cv-0-who Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 Wayne Stenehjem Attorney General of North Dakota 00 N. th Street Bismarck, ND 0 Phone: (0) - ndag@nd.gov Paul M. Seby (Pro Hac Vice) Special Assistant Attorney
More informationUnited States District Court
0 0 JOHN DOE, et al., v. KAMALA HARRIS, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, Defendants. NO. C- TEH ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE This case
More informationCase 4:15-cv CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 4:15-cv-00386-CVE-PJC Document 32 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/31/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. E. Scott Pruitt, in his official
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Hawaii Wildlife Fund et al v. County of Maui Doc. 242 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII HAWAI`I WILDLIFE FUND, a Hawaii non-profit corporation; SIERRA CLUB-MAUI GROUP, a non-profit
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :0-cv-0-DGC Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 WO Kelly Paisley; and Sandra Bahr, vs. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiffs, Henry R. Darwin, in his capacity as Acting
More informationCase 1:13-cv RMC Document 29 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-00365-RMC Document 29 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM C. TUTTLE ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 1:13-cv-00365-RMC
More informationCase 3:17-cv WHO Document 51 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 14
Case :-cv-0-who Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Gary J. Smith (SBN BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. Montgomery Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0- Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -00 gsmith@bdlaw.com Peter J.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALEC L., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02235 (RLW) LISA P. JACKSON, et al., and Defendants, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:16-cv-01045-F Document 19 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOHN DAUGOMAH, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-16-1045-D LARRY ROBERTS,
More informationCase 1:18-cv ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case 1:18-cv-00011-ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROD J. ROSENSTEIN,
More informationCase 1:16-cv SJ-SMG Document 13 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 138
Case 1:16-cv-03054-SJ-SMG Document 13 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 138 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------X ALEX MERCED,
More informationCASE 0:16-cv JRT-LIB Document 41 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-00422-JRT-LIB Document 41 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Crystal Tiessen, v. Chrysler Capital, et al., Plaintiff, Court File No. 16-cv-422 (JRT/LIB)
More informationCase 1:05-cv JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cv-01181-JGP Document 79 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHIGAN GAMBLING OPPOSITION ( MichGO, a Michigan non-profit corporation, Plaintiff,
More information