Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fox Vs. Vice

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 31, 2011

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

35 entries 2 linked 33 unlinked
Show
  1. Christiansburg Garment Co. Vs. Eeoc US Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1978
  2. Hensley Vs. Eckerhart US Supreme Court · May 16, 1983
  3. Syllabus October Term, 2010 Fox V. Vice
    Search
  4. even if they are not victorious on every claim, Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  5. F. 3d 423, vacated and remanded. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Fox v. Vice
    Search
  6. Opinion of the Court Fox V. Vice
    Search
  7. Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-114 Ricky D. Fox, Petitioner V. Judy
    Search
  8. so long as they added a single non-frivolous claim. Id. , at 428 (quoting Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Hailey
    Search
  9. s claims are frivolous. See Balmer v. HCA
    Search
  10. of frivolous and non-frivolous claims. Compare, e.g., 594 F. 3d 423 (CA5 2010) (opinion below), with Colombrito v. Kelly
    Search
  11. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  12. deviate from this background rule in certain types of cases by shifting fees from one party to another. See Burlington v. Dague
    Search
  13. Newman v. Piggie
    Search
  14. the party whose misconduct created the need for legal action. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  15. Riverside v. Rivera
    Search
  16. see also Kentucky v. Graham
    Search
  17. we explained in Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  18. for parties. See Farrar v. Hobby
    Search
  19. see Webb v. Dyer
    Search
  20. the trial court must apply the correct standard, and the appeals court must make sure that has occurred. See Perdue v. Kenny
    Search
  21. Cf. Koon v. United
    Search
  22. Pennsylvania v. Delaware
    Search
  23. Brief for Respondents 8, n. 5. Footnote 3 The test set out here differs from the one we adopted in Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  24. reflects the disparate legislative purposes we have recognized in the two settings. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  25. Court. Fox v. Vice
    Search
  26. Ricky D. Fox, Petitioner V. Judy
    Search
  27. Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Hailey
    Search
  28. See Balmer v. HCA
    Search
  29. Colombrito v. Kelly
    Search
  30. See Burlington v. Dague
    Search
  31. Kentucky v. Graham
    Search
  32. See Farrar v. Hobby
    Search
  33. Webb v. Dyer
    Search
  34. See Perdue v. Kenny
    Search
  35. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales