Search for: "Miller v. State of Virginia et al"
Results 41 - 55
of 55
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2011, 2:16 pm
News & Analysis 11111-11114 (2010).Batker, David, et al. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
[et al.]. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 8:28 am
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, et. al. held that, despite language in the General Contractor’s contract allowing set-off for obligations based upon “any other contract or agreement,” Miller Act claims are not subject to setoff based on non federal projects. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 6:00 am
Western Surety, et al., the Virginia based federal appellate court examined a side deal between a mechanical contractor and its supplier regarding payment for equipment supplied to a project in Chesapeake, VA. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:25 pm
” In re Jeffrey Beard, et al, 2010 U.S. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 6:01 am
United States and Black, et al. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 2:00 am
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, et. al. held that, despite language in the General Contractor's contract allowing setoff for obligations based upon "any other contract or agreement," Miller Act claims are not subject to setoff based on non federal projects. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 3:05 pm
The case is Graham County Soil & Water District, et al., v. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 4:08 pm
Enterprise Leasing Co. of Indianapolis, Inc., et al. , an 8-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:After a policyholder was involved in a automobile accident in Virginia while driving a rental car owned by Enterprise Leasing ("Enterprise"), Safe Auto Insurance Company ("Safe Auto") filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Adams Circuit Court arguing its policyholder was not driving a covered vehicle, and therefore, there was no coverage under the Safe… [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 8:50 am
And segmentation is driving the evolution of our industry not just at the top, in AmLaw 25 land, but at every level of the industry, including regional firms, boutiques, and even "the 22 lawyer firm in Vienna, Virginia. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 7:04 am
The anitrust case (Pacific Bell Telephone, et al., v. linkLine Communications, et al., 07-512) is a test of the theory that a “prize squeeze” violates the Sherman Act. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 9:05 am
Pimentel, et al. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 8:03 am
(Buffalo Teachers Federation et al. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2007, 8:09 am
., Inc. (30-CA-12855, et al.; 349 NLRB No. 18) Milwaukee, WI Jan. 31, 2007. [read post]
9 Oct 2006, 5:12 pm
.) *** ELC Electric, Inc. (25-CA-28270-1, et al.; 348 NLRB No. 17) Indianapolis, IN Sept. 28, 2006. [read post]
