Search for: "WARFIELD" Results 41 - 60 of 63
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jul 2010, 10:00 am
(photo credit) Conditions were cramped on the 19-year-old passenger steamer President Warfield, which was only 118 meters (129 yards) long. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 9:53 am by Steven M. Gursten
Without warning - and without providing her an opportunity to respond - Judge Warfield Moore Jr. dismissed Ms. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 4:30 am by Gene Takagi
BH:  Charitable gift annuities are investment contracts under federal securities law and not covered by the Philanthropy Protection Act (Warfield v. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 4:35 am
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued an opinion, Warfield v. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 6:18 am
Extant research has primarily focused on how chief executive officer (CEO) equity incentives affect earnings management (Bergstresser and Philippon 2006; Cheng and Warfield 2005). [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 10:38 am
Richard Warfield, a Dallas criminal attorney had this to say: “Without knowing all the facts or circumstances surrounding this tragedy I cannot be certain if the Grand Jury erred. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 4:06 am
Ninth Circuit: Annuities Were Securities, Foundation Was Not ExemptBy Rodney TonkovicAssociate Writer-Analyst, CCH Federal Securities Law ReporterA 9th Circuit panel (Warfield v. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 11:39 am
So I obviously now know how much influence I have on the Ninth Circuit. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 12:55 pm
Richard Warfield, a Dallas criminal attorney had this to say: “Without knowing all the facts or circumstances surrounding this tragedy I cannot be certain if the Grand Jury erred. [read post]
29 May 2008, 10:12 am
Richard Warfield, a very respected local Dallas Attorney specializing in DWI had this to say: “The law in Texas regarding DWI’s(Driving While Intoxicated) requires that if a peace officer has “probable cause”(i.e. [read post]
18 Jan 2008, 10:05 pm
There is nothing in the record, however, to suggest that Warfield charged the Trustee anything extra, or treated the Trust any differently than it would have treated an individual with similar objectives, because of the Trustee's fiduciary obligations. [read post]