legal-news

ActBlue LLC et al v. Paxton

26-cv-11986
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

The court granted a motion to appear pro hac vice for a lawyer in the ActBlue LLC et al v. Paxton case. This allows the lawyer to participate in the case temporarily. The lawyer's appearance is significant because it may impact the case's outcome.

No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.

smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

Court not identified

Awaiting court metadata

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Active litigation

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

1:26-cv-11986 ActBlue LLC et al v. Paxton

Other · May 01, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

1 article

1 source tracked

groups

Participants

1 Plaintiff, 1 Related Organization

3 linked entities

gavel

Judge

Not assigned in feed

What the record shows

The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.

The newest docket activity we have is a other dated May 01, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes 1:26-cv-11986 ActBlue LLC and others.

Press monitoring has found 1 related article from 1 distinct source.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

1 event
info
Other May 1, 2026

1:26-cv-11986 ActBlue LLC et al v. Paxton

The court granted a motion to appear pro hac vice for a lawyer in the ActBlue LLC et al v. Paxton case. This allows the lawyer to participate in the case temporarily. The lawyer's appearance is significant because it may impact the case's outcome.

Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

1 article
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

1 outlet · 1 article

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

5 days, 14 hours ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.