Search for: "Harmon v. harmon et al" Results 21 - 40 of 144
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Dec 2021, 5:05 am by Charles Sartain
Bulite for separationIn resolving a dispute over post-production cost deductions from oil and gas royalties (PPC’s), the court in Shirlaine West Properties Ltd et al v. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 9:07 pm by Adeline Chong
This position is in line with the prevailing opinion in Japan according to which punitive damages are in principle contrary to Japanese public policy due to the fundamental difference in nature (civil v. criminal) and function (compensatory v. punitive/sanction) (For a general overview on the debate in Japan, see Béligh Elbalti, “Foreign Judgments Recognition and Enforcement in Civil and Commercial Matters in Japan”, Osaka University Law Review, Vol. 66, 2019,… [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 4:41 am by Charles Sartain
Walker Murray Randle, et al. did not permit deduction of postproduction costs from sales proceeds before royalties were computed, and a “free use” clause did not authorize the lessee to consume leasehold gas in off-lease operations without compensating the lessors. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 5:08 pm by Natalma M. McKnew
Several state Attorneys General challenged the new regulation in New York et al v. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 1:36 pm by CrimProf BlogEditor
Perlin, Talia Roitberg Harmon and Sarah Wetzel (New York Law School, Niagara University and Niagara University - Department of Criminal Justice) have posted 'Man is Opposed to Fair Play': An Empirical Analysis of How the Fifth Circuit Has... [read post]
4 May 2020, 4:46 pm by INFORRM
What the GC et al decision does do is suggest an immediate and positive way forward for substantive data protection at a policy and not just judicial level. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 5:21 am by Charles Sartain
Here we continue our discussion of the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Piranha Partners et al. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 5:04 am by Charles Sartain
The question for the Texas Supreme Court in Piranha Partners et al. v. [read post]