Search for: "Barker v. Smith"
Results 21 - 40
of 52
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2014, 2:18 am
Smith (Ivins, Phillips & Barker, Washington, D.C.): In Kuretski v. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 11:49 am
This is the backdrop for Barker v. [read post]
15 Sep 2013, 1:30 pm
(See Andrews v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 7:44 am
In Smith v. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 1:44 am
Smith (Ivins, Phillips & Barker, Washington, D.C.), PPL: How to Determine Whether a Foreign Tax is Creditable, 138 Tax Notes 1351 (Mar. 18, 2013): PPL Corp. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:00 am
Barker v. [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 8:01 am
On the other hand, although the Louisiana criminal justice system has been under fire in the Court recently (see, for example, Smith v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 12:34 pm
Smith (SD Ind., Barker), an 11-page opinion, Circuit Judge Tinder writes:Joshua Resendez appeals the district court’s... [read post]
1 May 2012, 8:45 pm
Kelly and Smith v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 3:00 am
Smith (Ivins, Phillips & Barker, Washington, D.C.), Standards for Tax Court Review in Equitable Innocent Spouse Cases, 134 Tax Notes 981 (Feb. 20, 2012): In a case pending in the Ninth Circuit [Wilson v. [read post]
19 Nov 2011, 6:53 pm
In Smith v. [read post]
25 Sep 2011, 7:12 pm
The court considered the application of the principle of ‘purposive construction’, derived originally from the words of Lord Diplock in the UK case of Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] RPC 183. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 3:37 am
Barker, and I’d also discussed the oral argument on that in June. [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 3:50 pm
In Smith v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 11:31 am
” Barker v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 8:40 am
The Fairchild exception was refined in Barker v Corus [2006] UKHL 20 so that each responsible party was only liable for the proportion of damages which correlated to their contribution to the risk to the claimant. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 11:04 pm
Smith v. [read post]
19 Dec 2010, 5:59 am
Third, Harry Smith on Matt Damon. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
General Motors Corp., 882 P.2d 298, 308-09 (Cal. 1994); Barker v. [read post]
