Search for: "Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc." Results 61 - 80 of 118
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Mar 2010, 7:07 am by Erin Miller
Kellogg, Brown & Root Service, Inc. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 7:30 am by Robert Brammer
KBR, Inc., the Army had awarded KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.) a contact to manage waste and provide other services on operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm by Stuart Altman and Michelle Kisloff
Although the Target court does not explicitly state so, it appears to follow the “substantial purpose” version of the “primary purpose” test used by the court in In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F. 3d 754 (D.C. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm by Stuart Altman and Michelle Kisloff
Although the Target court does not explicitly state so, it appears to follow the “substantial purpose” version of the “primary purpose” test used by the court in In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F. 3d 754 (D.C. [read post]
30 May 2010, 3:55 pm by Anna Christensen
Kellogg, Brown & Root Service, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 11:53 am by Rebecca Shafer, J.D.
    The major contractors who are on the receiving end of the workers compensation claims and third party liability claims include Halliburton; KBR Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., and Kellogg, Brown & Root, LLC. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 2:44 pm
Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., 450 F. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 1:10 pm by WOLFGANG DEMINO
” In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tex. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 12:10 pm by Greene LLP
The government also filed suit against a number of government contractors, including: Kellogg, Brown & Root, and CA Inc. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 6:00 am by Amy Howe
Metzgar and Kellogg, Brown & Root Services v. [read post]
2 May 2017, 7:52 am by Beth Graham
See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 739-40 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (explaining that under the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel, a non-signatory plaintiff seeking to benefit under a contract cannot avoid the contract’s arbitration clause). [read post]