Search for: "Fee v. Fee"
Results 3121 - 3140
of 31,270
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2007, 6:00 am
They were filed in In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, Alameda County Superior Court, JCCP no. 4332, and address the impact of Fireside Bank, the one-way intervention decision, on the scheduling of various types of motions: Plaintiffs' Supplemental Case Management Conference Statement (filed 04/20/07) Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities Regarding Fireside Bank v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 10:16 am
" Lyda v. [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 8:17 pm
The decision failed to award maintenance fees to the plaintiff, but did award the plaintiff’s counsel the amount of $87,000. [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 8:17 pm
The decision failed to award maintenance fees to the plaintiff, but did award the plaintiff’s counsel the amount of $87,000. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 9:00 am
<> Southern Forest Watch, Inc. v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 4:18 am
On May 22, 2014, the Delaware Corporate Law Council proposed an amendment to the DCGL that according to the amendment’s synopsis is “intended to limit the applicability of [the Delaware Supreme Court decision in ATP Tours, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jan 2025, 3:26 pm
There shouldn't have been a fee award in the trial court in the first place.I'm not sure that Justice Wiley (or the rest of the panel) disagrees with this.But wrinkle here is that after the fee award, and after the fee award was appealed, one month before the trial was about to start, the parties settled their dispute (except for the fee award). [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 7:07 am
On Wednesday February 17, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court denied one motion by a prisoner seeking a waiver of filing fees and administratively closed the case of Howard v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 4:29 am
Clancy v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 6:34 am
He wins the appeal, however, because the trial court did something wrong during the case.The case is Costello v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 10:31 am
The second reason is not as obvious: prevailing on an action to enforce a non-compete where blue-penciling is ordered may limit the right to recover attorneys' fees by contract.As the Court of Appeals of Missouri held last week in Paradise v. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 7:33 am
See Price v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm
Burke v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 10:16 am
Miller v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 7:53 am
The post DAVID ANTONIO HOOKER, et al v. [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 9:19 am
Contracts — Arbitration — Attorney’s fees The parties to this appeal seek to wash their hands of this bathroom renovation dispute. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 12:39 pm
V. [read post]
20 Feb 2020, 6:20 am
Aguirre v. [read post]
12 May 2014, 7:03 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Foreclosure Opinions Body: AC35287 - East Windsor v. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 11:37 am
Phillips v. [read post]
