⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Cowles v. McHugh”

Brady v. McHughpublic domain
New York Court of Chancery · 1922-01-16 · Published · cited 0× · 94 N.J. Eq. 336; 9 Stock. 336; 119 A. 377; 1922 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 64
FlELDEH, Y. C. On. November 27th, 1916, John C. McHugh entered into a bond to Mary Curnen conditioned for the payment on the same day of $1,000 with interest at six per cent. He and Ella D. McHugh, his wife, executed their mortgage to Mrs. Curnen, bearing even date with and to secure the paj'ment of said bond, which mortgage covers lands in Jersey City and is'not recorded. At the date of the bond and mortgage said lands were n
In re Cowlespublic domain
District Court, D. Minnesota · 1867-07-01 · Published · cited 1× · 6 F. Cas. 672; 1 West. Jur. 367
NELSON, District Judge, delivered a written opinion. He said the petition in substance charges; (1) That the said Cowles, being possessed of certain estate, rights, and credits, made a conveyance of the same with intent to delay, hinder, and defraud his creditors. (2) That said Cowles, being insolvent, made a conveyance with intent to give a preference to one of his creditors, and with intent to defeat the operation of the bankrup
Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2025-06-24 · Published · cited 0×
FIRST DIVISION BARNES, P. J., BROWN and WATKINS, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules
THACKER v. COWLINGpublic domain
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2020-06-09 · Published · cited 0× · 2020 OK CIV APP 41
THACKER v. COWLING Skip to Main Content Accessibility Statement Help Contact Us
District Court, E.D. New York · 2014-12-08 · Published · cited 18× · 64 F. Supp. 3d 406; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169487; 2014 WL 6886079
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. On August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff Paul Cotterell (the “Plaintiff’), then an employee of the non-party New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”), commenced this action against the Defendants James Gilmore, William Hastback, and Susan Ritchie (the “Defendants”) and certain John and Jane Does. The Defendants were at all relevant times
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2016-09-16 · Published · cited 1× · 209 F. Supp. 3d 1093; 83 ERC (BNA) 1233; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126237; 2016 WL 4944082
MEMORANDUM CAROL E. JACKSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiffs Wilson Road Development Corporation (WRDC), Brenda Diimey, Daniel Dumey, and the Brenda Kay Du-mey and Daniel E. Dumey Revocable Living Trusts initiated this action on May 11, 2011, seeking monetary and declaratory relief under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2021-03-26 · Published · cited 53× · 992 F.3d 950
FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 26, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE
District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2013-09-11 · Published · cited 15× · 971 F. Supp. 2d 896; 2013 WL 4875071; 77 ERC (BNA) 1892; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129575
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CAROL E. JACKSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed jointly by defendants Union Electric Company d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Ameren) and Citizens Electric Corporation (Citizens)(collectively referred to as the “utility defendants”), and the motion filed by defendant Fronabarger Concreters, Inc. (Fronabar-ger). Plaintiffs oppose
Bronner v. Dugganpublic domain
District Court, District of Columbia · 2017-03-31 · Published · cited 3× · 249 F. Supp. 3d 27; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48917
MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting in Part and Denying in Part Dependants’ Renewed Motion To Dismiss ' RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs bring this suit in their individual capacities and derivatively on behalf of the American Studies Association, alleging that a group of acad
Court of Appeals of Utah · 2007-09-27 · Published · cited 5× · 2007 UT App 315; 169 P.3d 789; 587 Utah Adv. Rep. 34; 2007 Utah App. LEXIS 323; 2007 WL 2791469
169 P.3d 789 (2007) 2007 UT App 315 M & S COX INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; Mervyn Cox; and Sue Cox, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PROVO CITY CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellee. No. 20060386-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. September 27, 2007. *791 Reed L. Martineau, Salt Lake City,
District Court, District of Columbia · 2014-12-12 · Published · cited 12× · 75 F. Supp. 3d 387; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172111
MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION *392 This consolidated action
Michigan Supreme Court · 2013-07-30 · Published · cited 68× · 494 Mich. 543; 81 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 239; 837 N.W.2d 244; 2013 WL 3924324; 2013 Mich. LEXIS 1131
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Chief Justice: Justices: Syllabus Robert P. Young, Jr. Michael F. Cavanagh
Anger v. Benderpublic domain
Appellate Court of Illinois · 1975-08-21 · Published · cited 5× · 335 N.E.2d 122; 31 Ill. App. 3d 877; 1975 Ill. App. LEXIS 2907
31 Ill. App.3d 877 (1975) 335 N.E.2d 122 HANS ANGER et al., as Trustees, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOSWIN BENDER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 61257. Illinois Appellate Court — First District (3rd Division). August 21, 1975. Palmer, McHugh, Muldoon & Blackman, Ltd., of Chicago (Frank J. Penna, of counsel), for appellants. Rooks, Pitts,
District Court, S.D. New York · 1989-03-28 · Published · cited 31× · 709 F. Supp. 1290; 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3042; 1989 WL 29336
709 F.Supp. 1290 (1989) Peter HUANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SENTINEL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, et al., Defendants. George SCHARFFENBERGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SENTINEL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, et al., Defendants. Nos. 85 Civ. 8607 (PKL), 86 Civ. 3370 (PKL). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 28, 1989. *1291
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980-07-10 · Published · cited 9× · 76 A.D.2d 162; 430 N.Y.S.2d 275; 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11745
OPINION OF THE COURT Sullivan, J. At issue is whether, at the instigation of CBS, Warner Wolf, a sportscaster, breached the good faith negotiation and first refusal provisions of his contract with ABC and, if so, whether ABC is entitled to equitable relief. Contrary to Trial Term’s finding, we hold that Wolf did indeed breach his contract, although we also conclude that the grant of equitable relief is no
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1955-01-28 · Published · cited 0× · 218 F.2d 654; 1955 A.M.C. 542
SOPER, Circuit Judge. Ivory James Hill, Jr., the appellant in this case, was severely burned and permanently injured on November 23, 1952 in a fire on board the Promised Land, a Menhaden fishing vessel at a dock in Beaufort, North Carolina. He brought suit under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, against the owners and under the general admiralty law against the vessel. The case was tried by the District Judge without a jury
District Court, S.D. New York · 2007-03-26 · Published · cited 1× · 478 F. Supp. 2d 624
478 F.Supp.2d 624 (2007) In re EPHEDRA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Pertains To Stafford v. Weight Watchers Inc. et al, No. 05 Civ. 3021. No. 04 M.D. 1598(JSR). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 26, 2007. *625 *626 Anne Andrews, Andrews Kurth LLP, Dallas, TX, Catherine T
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1955-01-28 · Published · cited 2× · 218 F.2d 654; 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 4728
218 F.2d 654 Ivory James HILL, Jr., Appellant,v.ATLANTIC NAVIGATION COMPANY, a corporation, Gulf MenhadenCompany, Incorporated, a corporation, M/V PromisedLand, her tackle, apparel, etc., and TheFish Meal Company, acorporation, Appellees. No. 6918. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued Jan. 10, 1955.Decided Jan. 28, 1955.
California Supreme Court · 1900-01-11 · Published · cited 2× · 59 P. 759; 127 Cal. 442; 1900 Cal. LEXIS 669
Appellant is the residuary legatee under the will of her late husband, Solomon Heydenfeldt, deceased. On October 23, 1893, the final account of the respondents having been settled, a decree of distribution was entered, *Page 445 which, after directing the executors to pay to certain persons named in the decree certain specified sums, directed them to pay the remainder of the money in their hands, amounting to the sum of $18,665.89, to appellant. Th
Ferguson v. Charispublic domain
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933-12-08 · Published · cited 14× · 170 A. 131; 314 Pa. 164; 1934 Pa. LEXIS 467
Argued December 8, 1933. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the entry of judgment n. o. v. in favor of the defendant in the court below. Plaintiff in an action for trespass secured a verdict in the sum of $3,000, for injuries she received as a result of being run down by defendant's car. The accident took place at the intersection of Arch Street and the Parkway and Sixteenth Street in the City of Philadelphia, at seven p. m., March 28, 1931. The night was misty and rainy. In the center o