Search for: "Steve Bainbridge"
Results 281 - 300
of 368
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2007, 11:29 pm
Steve Bainbridge is promising a forthcoming editorial on this issue. [read post]
21 May 2007, 9:11 am
The most important thing to know about the case is that the court cited me in passing (JK), as well as fellow corporate law bloggers Steve Bainbridge and Larry Ribstein. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 8:43 am
For background, see Steve Bainbridge's Kokesh Footnote 3 Notwithstanding.) [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 4:36 pm
YET another UPDATE: Steve Bainbridge has some of the details on how the fraud came to light. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 7:30 am
Steve Bainbridge has noted these concerns and has invited comment from those who followed the case more closely.While the judges no doubt knew about these issues (as do probably all judges in the circuit if not the country), the issue that did come up constantly at the trial was a sort of test of wills that arose from having two federal judges in the court room, Judge Nottingham and Herbert Stern, a former federal… [read post]
15 Sep 2008, 1:24 am
UPDATE: Steve Bainbridge responds: That seems a little (okay, a lot) over the top to me. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 2:00 pm
Steve Odland, 50, chairman and CEO of Office Depot and a director of General Mills, probably speaks for the majority. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 12:11 pm
” But Steve Bainbridge responds that law schools may not adjust. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 8:15 am
., Bill Henderson, Dan Katz, Brian Leiter, Brian Tamanaha, Steve Bainbridge and me. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 9:40 am
" There has been lots of great commentary on the opinion: I'll crib from Larry and point you to Steve Bainbridge; Jeff Lipshaw; Gordon Smith; and Andrew Lund's paper on the subject. [read post]
24 May 2011, 7:19 am
I, of course, cite Steve Bainbridge (who posts to similar effect). [read post]
15 Jan 2008, 9:00 am
So much for the supposed Delphic quality of oral arguments.Second, we have to hand it to Steve Bainbridge at UCLA who got this case exactly right. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 10:26 am
NICE POINT here by Professor Bainbridge. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 5:15 am
Note Steve Bainbridge's thoughtful comment. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 7:05 am
Steve Bainbridge responds: The very nature of their social role precludes judges from being proactive regulators. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 9:14 am
’ Professor Bainbridge agrees. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 12:58 pm
Corporate law scholar Steve Bainbridge argues that it also violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. [read post]
15 Feb 2007, 3:48 pm
Perhaps a few of them (Steve Bainbridge?) [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 12:22 pm
What's more, difficulties that companies would have privately enforcing intellectual property rights in financial trading markets justifies federal enforcement, Bainbridge argues. [read post]
6 Feb 2010, 4:20 pm
UPDATE: Steve Bainbridge responds to this post here: My policy on comment moderation is based on the moment in the 1980 Presidential campaign when Ronald Reagan declared “I paid for this microphone. [read post]
