• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
226 results

Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al.

Docket 23-411, Supreme Court of the United States (Oct. 20, 2023)
Petitioner Vivek H. Murthy , et al.
Respondent Missouri, et al.
Respondent Louisiana
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

26-2024

Document Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al., 23-411, 26-2024 (U.S. Jun. 26, 2024)
Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.
The District Court made none.
Thus, none of these examples jus- tifies the conduct at issue here.
Nonetheless, Face- book figured that its “current course” of “in effect explaining ourselves more fully, but not shifting on where we draw the lines,” is “a recipe for protracted and increasing acrimony with the [White House].” Id., at 573.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED

Document Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al., 23-411, Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED (U.S. Jun. 26, 2024)
Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.
The District Court made none.
Thus, none of these examples jus- tifies the conduct at issue here.
Nonetheless, Face- book figured that its “current course” of “in effect explaining ourselves more fully, but not shifting on where we draw the lines,” is “a recipe for protracted and increasing acrimony with the [White House].” Id., at 573.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Motion of Kennedy Plaintiffs for leave

Document Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al., 23-411, Motion of Kennedy Plaintiffs for leave (U.S. Dec. 11, 2023)
“coordinated campaign” by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on social media platforms that now serve as the primary source of news about important public issues for many Americans.
But the denial of intervention is likely to prevent Mr. Kennedy from vindicating the rights he claims until the spring of 2024 and perhaps as late as June of that year.
In suc- cessfully arguing that we should stay the preliminary in- junction entered below, the Government contended strenu- ously that respondents lack standing.
In addition, allowing Mr. Kennedy to intervene would en- sure that we can reach the First Amendment issues, not- withstanding the Government’s contention that respond- ents lack standing.
Indeed, because Mr. Kennedy has been mentioned explicitly in communications between the Gov- ernment and social media platforms, he has a strong claim to standing, and the Government has not argued otherwise.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Judgment Issued - Main Document

Document Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al., 23-411, Judgment Issued, Main Document (U.S. Jul. 29, 2024)
Supreme Court of the United States
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI to the United States Court of Appeals for the
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioners, Vivek H. Murthy,
Surgeon General, et al., recover from Missouri, et al., Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-five Dollars and Thirty-two Cents ($8,925.32) for costs herein expended.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Application for a stay submitted to - Proof of Service

Document Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al., 23-411, Application for a stay submitted to, Proof of Service (U.S. Sep. 14, 2023)
No. 23A- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VIVEK H. MURTHY, U.S. SURGEON GENERAL, ET AL., APPLICANTS v. MISSOURI, ET AL. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that all
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion for divided argument and for - Main Document

Document Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al., 23-411, Motion for divided argument and for, Main Document (U.S. Feb. 15, 2024)
Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty and Ms. Jill Hines and Mr. Jim Hoft (collectively “the Individual Respondents”) respectfully move to file this motion to extend oral argument time by ten minutes and divide argument in this matter.
After conferral, the Petitioners, per the Solicitor General, take no position on this motion and the Respondent State of Louisiana does not oppose.
The Individual Respondents seek only ten minutes extra time (with the same for the Petitioners) with an attorney familiar with the record and law in this case as it pertains to them.
No party will be prejudiced by this motion, and granting the relief sought will aid the Court on an important matter; as demonstrated by the 28 amici curiae briefs filed on behalf of Respondents, this case is a matter of widespread public interest.
For the foregoing reasons, Individual Respondents respectfully request that an order be entered allowing the filing of this motion out of time, extending the time for oral argument by ten minutes for both sides and allowing divided argument.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Amicus brief of Liberty Counsel - Main Document

Document Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al., 23-411, Amicus brief of Liberty Counsel, Main Document (U.S. Feb. 13, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 >>