Search for: "Mays v. Chandler"
Results 301 - 320
of 420
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2010, 6:42 am
Dissenting Opinion Justice Randolph wrote for the dissent joined by Justices Dickinson, Lamar and Chandler. [read post]
14 May 2010, 2:12 pm
See Rapid-American Corp. v. [read post]
11 May 2010, 5:39 pm
Panelists: Mark Chandler, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Cisco Systems Inc. [read post]
10 May 2010, 3:09 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 8:21 am
See Ornelas et al. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 7:20 am
In Zapata v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 11:33 am
Applying the Delaware Supreme Court’s test for demand-excused derivative cases, Chancellor Chandler concluded that there were material questions on whether the special litigation committee was independent and whether it conducted a good faith investigation of reasonable scope that yielded a reasonable basis for its decisions.The chancery action was governed by the 1981 Delaware Supreme Court opinion in Zapata Corp v. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 6:22 am
In KSR v. [read post]
27 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
In Amirsaleh v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Hewlett v. [read post]
6 Mar 2010, 10:58 am
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Ohio physicians may have just gotten some big help when it comes to lawsuits. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 3:00 am
Gutchess 1998 Irrevocable Trust v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 12:46 pm
ESN v. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 10:47 am
by Zachary Wadlé The Heart Attack Grill in Chandler, Arizona (http://www.heartattackgrill.com) is unabashedly unhealthful. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 6:04 am
Chancellor Chandler made it quite clear that Delaware law simply does not support this distinction. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 5:22 am
El Camino Res., LTD. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 3:41 pm
Here’s how the Arkansas court of appeals looked at the case, DeSoto Gathering Co. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2010, 8:45 am
Recently, the Supreme Court clarified the concept of bad faith in Lyondell Chemical Co. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 9:11 pm
Click Here Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]