⚖ 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.

4 opinions for “Shirley Mae Conover”

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982-07-06 · Published · cited 12× · 293 S.E.2d 240; 58 N.C. App. 15; 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2756
293 S.E.2d 240 (1982) SCOVILL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Schrader Fluid Power Division, Haywood Barham, Betty L. Barham, Kenneth Cottrell, Shirley Cottrell, Clara Lee Davis, widow, Suzanne Mills Erskine, Wayne Erskine, John E. Finch, Rose S. Finch, William S. Fort, Sarah Fort, Betty J. Frankow, David M. Frankow, Mannie K. Jackson, Edward R. Jackson, Harvey M. Jones, Jr., Geraldine J. Jones, Wallace E. Looper, Carol H. Looper, John G. Mills, Jr., widowe
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2021-11-04 · Published · cited 0×
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) · 2018-12-21 · Published · cited 1× · 566 S.W.3d 410
Reversed and Remanded and Opinion filed December 21, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court Harr
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004-10-26 · Published · cited 105× · 387 F.3d 1146; 33 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2473; 175 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3146; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22270; 2004 WL 2403115
EBEL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, a group of former employees of Defendant Lucent Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”), sued Defendant in state court for fraud arising out of alleged misrepresentations made in encouraging Plaintiffs to take an early retirement benefits package. Defendant removed the case to federal court on the basis of complete preemption under the Employee Retire