Search for: "Simmons v. State Bar" Results 41 - 60 of 187
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Nov 2009, 6:20 pm by LexBlog
Here's how the Levenson opinion was reported in 'Slayer Statute' Doesn't Bar Lawyers From Keeping Fees Paid by Executrix, Judges Rule: Georgia's defense bar on Monday welcomed a state Supreme Court decision confirming that legal fees paid to two attorneys by the executor of an estate prior to her subsequent guilty plea for murder of her husband could not be clawed back to the estate. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 7:34 pm by cdw
Mata from Nebraska, and the other noncapital, Simmons v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 5:02 am by MOTP
In other words, the arbitration agreement (paragraph 10) does not depend on the validity of the contract of which it is a part and would not be rendered moot if a breach-of-contract cause of action were barred by section 82.065(a). [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 8:17 am
[Disclosure: colleagues at Simmons&Simmons acted on this case].2. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Res judicata bars not only those claims that were actually litigated previously, but also those which might have been raised in the former action or arbitration" (Piller v Princeton Realty Assoc. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Res judicata bars not only those claims that were actually litigated previously, but also those which might have been raised in the former action or arbitration" (Piller v Princeton Realty Assoc. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 1:31 am
Former Guest Kat Darren Meale (Simmons & Simmons, London) explains.* BREAKING: AG Szpunar says that fair compensation for private copying can be funded through state budget but amount cannot be established ex anteEleonora reports on Advocate General Maciej Szpunar's Opinion in EGEDA C-470/14 [here], a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spanish Supreme Court seeking clarification as to whether private copying can be public-funded… [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 3:29 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Contrary to petitioners' contention, however, the petition fails to state a cause of action for fraud or constructive fraud against either HSBC or respondent law firm because it fails to make a "factually supported allegation" of misrepresentation (Pope v Saget, 29 AD3d 437, 441, lv denied 8 NY3d 803; see Simmons v Washing Equip. [read post]