Search for: "SHIELDS v. SMITH" Results 241 - 260 of 392
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Mar 2016, 4:51 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  The comparative negligence of banking regulators in failing to identify poor policies or loans during examinations has also been generally unavailing, as many federal courts have found that the FDIC as regulator owes no legal duty to the directors and officers to conduct bank regulatory examinations in any particular manner.[16]   LESSON #6 – D&O INSURANCE IS A LAST LINE OF DEFENSE, NOT A COMPREHENSIVE SHIELD AGAINST LIABILITY   D&O insurance is an important… [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
  The Supreme Court absolutely got it right in Employment Div. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 6:25 am by Adam Klasfeld
A close reading of the lead opinion, concurrences, and dissents in Trump v. [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 11:46 am by Jonathan Bailey
According to Jeff Kosseff, the author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, the judgment that governed liability for third parties prior to Section 230 was Smith v. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 6:54 am by Jason A. Weis, Esq.
Sword and Shield: As discussed below, sword and shield should not be available as a defense anymore in light of section 8.01-223.1 of the Virginia Code, as interpreted in Travis v. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 10:39 am by admin
Sword and Shield: As discussed below, sword and shield should not be available as a defense anymore in light of section 8.01-223.1 of the Virginia Code, as interpreted in Travis v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 11:30 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Halliburton Co. green-lighted securities class-action suits the business community had hoped to stop, and in Smith v. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 9:07 am by Graham Smith
from Graham Smith The recent Donald Ashby (sub nom Ashby Donald) decision of the European Court of Human Rights has revived interest in the relationship between copyright and freedom of expression. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:01 pm
Smith , No. 08-1477 Sentence for distribution of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant a continuance for another chance to present expert testimony; 2) the district court correctly applied 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553 (a) when sentencing defendant, and did not fail to adequately address the factors set forth in the statute; and 3) there is no evidence that the district court's tangential statements about early… [read post]
28 Oct 2024, 1:18 am by INFORRM
On the same day, there was an appeal hearing before Linden J in the harassment case of Smith v Poulton & others KA-2024-000084. [read post]
3 Feb 2008, 3:25 pm
§ 1110(a) by impermissibly shielding a fiduciary from liability. [read post]