Search for: "Fee v. Fee"
Results 2061 - 2080
of 31,270
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jan 2008, 5:35 am
In Alpha Chiropractic P.C. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2007, 4:00 pm
Estrada v. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 7:25 pm
In Remax Shores, Inc v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 4:32 am
Exeter Law Group LLP v Immortalana Inc. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 7:25 am
B.W. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 8:35 am
This case shows us how it works, and why it is difficult to challenge the district court's reasoning on an attorney's' fees motion.The case is Ortiz v. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 7:46 am
Corp. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 6:43 am
The Court now says that a favorable ruling on the merits is not necessary for the employer to recover reverse-fees in a Title VII case.The case is CRST Van Expedited v. [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 7:22 am
" Phigenix, Inc. v. [read post]
21 May 2011, 12:11 pm
In Morgan v. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 7:09 am
" Morren v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 9:27 am
Because the employee prevailed against the employer's breach of contract claim and the employer's breach of duty of loyalty claim was not due to a breach of the non-solicitation paragraph of the agreement, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of attorney's fees to the employee and the denial of the same to the employer.Relying on the meaning of the term "incurred" as specified by the Dutta v. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 2:38 pm
Dominguez v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 8:15 am
The recent Court of Appeal decision in C v W [2008] EWCA Civ 1459 was concerned with a CFA with a success fee that was entered into after liability had been admitted by the Defendant's insurers. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 9:12 pm
Specialist costs counsel Dr Mark Friston has put together an invaluable guide to the recent decision in MGN v United Kingdom, concerning success fees. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 9:00 pm
WebXchange Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 6:41 pm
County of Santa Clara v. [read post]
27 Jan 2008, 12:18 pm
In a recent decision of Thornton v. [read post]
22 Apr 2021, 4:06 pm
In Reyes v. [read post]
21 Dec 2007, 6:26 pm
The case is Harman v. [read post]
