⚖ 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 “Ferguson v. Fox”

District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1995-05-31 · Published · cited 2× · 172 F.R.D. 653; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21617; 1995 WL 916196
*657 ORDER COOK, Chief Judge. In 1993, Varity Corporation (Varity) unilaterally modified a retirement health program that had been established for the benefit of its employees through the collective bargaining process prior to its acquisition of the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, Masseyr Ferguson, Inc. (Massey-Ferguson). Varity’s administ
Fox v. Fergusonpublic domain
Missouri Court of Appeals · 1989-02-14 · Published · cited 6× · 765 S.W.2d 689; 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 196; 1989 WL 11631
765 S.W.2d 689 (1989) John N. FOX and Georganne Fox, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Eugene W. FERGUSON and Patricia J. Ferguson, Defendants/Appellants. No. 54642. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two. February 14, 1989. *690 Steinberg, Crotzer & Garland, Charles L. Ford, St. Louis, for defendants/appellants.<
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2016-04-11 · Published · cited 9× · 193 Wash. App. 254; 372 P.3d 784
Lau, J. ¶1 Richard and Marnie Fox appeal the trial court’s order denying their motion for a writ of mandamus *260 seeking to compel Skagit County to issue a building permit. The Foxes argue the trial court erred when it ruled that the well on their property, despite being exempt from the water permit re
Fox v. Moultriepublic domain
Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2008-09-15 · Published · cited 9× · 666 S.E.2d 915; 379 S.C. 609; 2008 S.C. LEXIS 287
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 611 Steven K. Fox, various Charleston County offices, and the Department of Revenue appeal the master-in-equity's finding that a person buying a property in a county delinquent property tax sale purchased the property subject to outstanding Internal Revenue Service (IRS) liens. We affirm.
Ferguson v. Foxpublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923-04-15 · Published · cited 0× · 206 A.D. 665
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Finch and McAvoy, JJ.
Ferguson v. Foxpublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923-04-15 · Published · cited 0× · 206 A.D. 661
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Smith, Page, Merrell and McAvoy, JJ.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993-07-14 · Published · cited 132× · 998 F.2d 743; 93 Daily Journal DAR 9045; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5337; 26 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1158; 143 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2834; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 17387; 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,449; 62 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 489; 1993 WL 257405
CYNTHIA HOLCOMB , HALL, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I concur in Parts I — III of the majority opinion, but dissent from Part IV. I disagree with the majority that the district court properly exercised its discretion in sanctioning Ramirez’s attorney. Although Ramirez’s attorney was remiss in simply changing the title of his motion papers and submitting the same set of papers twice, I ca
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2017-10-24 · Published · cited 0×
Order entered October 24, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00278-CV MOHAMED MOHAMED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A.M., A MINOR, Appellants V. THE BLAZE, INC., GLENN BECK, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, JIM HANSON, FOX TELEVISIO
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2017-09-19 · Published · cited 0×
Order entered September 19, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00278-CV MOHAMED MOHAMED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A.M., A MINOR, Appellant V. THE BLAZE, INC., GLENN BECK, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, J
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2017-09-18 · Published · cited 0×
Order entered September 18, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00278-CV MOHAMED MOHAMED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A.M., A MINOR, Appellant V. THE BLAZE, INC., GLENN BECK, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY,
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas) · 2017-08-02 · Published · cited 0×
Order entered August 2, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00278-CV MOHAMED MOHAMED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A.M., A MINOR, Appellants V. THE BLAZE, INC., GLENN BECK, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY, JIM HANSON, FOX TELEVISION STA
Supreme Court of Kansas · 1970-11-07 · Published · cited 7× · 476 P.2d 646; 206 Kan. 97; 1970 Kan. LEXIS 443
206 Kan. 97 (1970) 476 P.2d 646 F.A. FOX, Appellant, v. MASSEY-FERGUSON, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Appellee. No. 45,819 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed November 7, 1970. Van Smith, of Corley, Braun & Smith, of Garden City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant. Dale E. Saffels, of Fleming,
Court of Appeals of Washington · 2016-02-08 · Published · cited 0× · 192 Wash. App. 512
[As amended by order of the Court of Appeals March 24, 2016.] Schindler, J. ¶1 When a criminal defendant files a motion to enlarge time under RAP 18.8(b) to file an untimely appeal of a conviction, the State must establish the defendant made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his state constitutional right to appeal. Because a parent does not hav
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2023-04-20 · Published · cited 5× · 65 F.4th 806
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0079p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Ap
FOX v. MIZEpublic domain
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2018-09-18 · Published · cited 10× · 2018 OK 75
OSCN Found Document:FOX v. MIZE FOX v. MIZE2018 OK 75Case Number: 116489Decided: 09/18/2018THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2018 OK 75, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. <
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858-06-23 · Published · cited 0× · 58 Ky. 83; 1 Met. 83; 1858 Ky. LEXIS 18
JUDGE SIMPSON delivered the ohnion oe the court: Fox being the owner of a slaughter-house in the city of Cincinnati, was employed by Ferguson to slaughter for him a large lot of fat hogs. The hogs were delivered to Fox to be slaughtered, on the 24th of November, 1853. By the agreement of the parties, they were to be slaughtered on delivery; but they were not slaughtered for several days afterwards.
State v. Foxpublic domain
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018-05-22 · Published · cited 0× · 2018 Ohio 1995
[Cite as State v. Fox, 2018-Ohio-1995.] COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 2023-11-01 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA FILED JAY FERGUSON, November 1, 2023 Plaintiff Below, Petitioner EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997-08-25 · Published · cited 2× · 121 F.3d 1357; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6832; 41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,171; 97 Daily Journal DAR 10998; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 22631; 1997 WL 489034
FERGUSON, Circuit Judge: Blue Fox appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the Small Business Administration and the Department of the Army. *1359Blue Fox was a subcontractor which worked on a construction project at an Army Depot. After the prime contractor failed to pay Blue Fox in full, Blue Fox sought an equitable lien against funds held by the Army and Smal
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit · 2024-01-23 · Published · cited 0×
BAP Appeal No. 23-3 Docket No. 51 Filed: 01/23/2024 Page: 1 of 30 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ IN RE MOTIVA PERFORMANCE BAP No. NM-23-003 ENGINEERING, LLC, Debtor. ___________________________________ Bankr. No. 19-125