Search for: "BARKER v. BARKER"
Results 201 - 220
of 691
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2015, 2:18 pm
Hart Publishing is delighted to announce the publication of ‘Law of Misstatements: 50 Years on from Hedley Byrne v Heller’ edited by Kit Barker, Ross Grantham, Warren Swain 2013 was the 50th anniversary of the House of Lords’ landmark decision... [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 1:00 pm
In Barker v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 9:56 am
Bowman v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 4:56 am
Bowman v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 4:56 am
Bowman v. [read post]
Ninth Circuit’s Pro-PAGA Decision Is Not the Death Knell for Class Waivers in Arbitration Agreements
1 Oct 2015, 7:34 pm
Authored by Emily Barker This week, in Sakkab, et al v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 12:51 pm
Barker 40 Fla. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 12:51 pm
Barker 40 Fla. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
In Barker v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 8:00 am
Barker v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 5:00 am
This recently released NYSE Governance/Barker Gilmore survey, “GCs: Adding Value to the C-Suite,” examines the value of GCs as perceived by public company directors and CEOs. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 4:02 pm
See State v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 12:54 pm
Barker, of first-degree child abuse and neglect of a minor. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 4:22 am
Kachina Pipeline Company v. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 1:55 pm
Patent No. 8,177,449• Count V for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 3:27 am
Later, in Barker v Corus [2006] UKHL 20, the House of Lords decided that each employer was only liable pro rata in respect of the period of time the employee was exposed to asbestos under their employment. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 8:59 am
In Kachina Pipeline Company, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 8:59 am
In Kachina Pipeline Company, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2015, 1:00 am
Circuit Opinion in Z Street v. [read post]
20 May 2015, 2:46 am
The Supreme Court held that as the common law rule in Barker remained unaltered in Guernsey where the Compensation Act 2006 does not apply, only 22.08% of respondent’s loss is thus attributable to the period of the Midland insurance for which the appellant must answer. [read post]
