Search for: "Bell v. Martin"
Results 61 - 80
of 179
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2017, 5:11 pm
Bell, 32 N.J. [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 5:10 pm
Bell, 32 N.J. [read post]
31 Jan 2008, 4:00 am
Nash in New York County adopts the Second Department's holding:"Public policy dictates that courts pay particular attention to fee arrangements between attorneys and their clients, as it is important that a fee contract be fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by the client (see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993, 499 NYS2d 381, 489 NE2d 1283 [1985]; Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172, 176, 507 NYS2d 610, 499 NE2d 864 [1986];… [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 2:35 pm
Bell Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville 08a0450p.06 West v. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 2:35 pm
Bell Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville 08a0450p.06 West v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 10:02 am
Jude Medical, Inc., 210 F.Supp.2d 853, 861-62 (W.D.Ky.2001) (citing Martin v. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 2:15 pm
The trial featured two of New York’s leading and most respected medical malpractice firms – Godosky & Gentile, P.C. for plaintiff and Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP for the defendants. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 2:15 pm
The trial featured two of New York’s leading and most respected medical malpractice firms – Godosky & Gentile, P.C. for plaintiff and Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP for the defendants. [read post]
6 Sep 2024, 6:30 am
Bell, Ran Ben-Tzur, Alan C. [read post]
6 Sep 2024, 6:30 am
Bell, Ran Ben-Tzur, Alan C. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 5:03 pm
App. 711, 716 (2), 165 S.E.2d 581 (1968); Martin v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 1:23 pm
Marbury v. [read post]
4 May 2007, 10:42 pm
MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 3:09 pm
BG Martins first asserts that these transcripts are not judicial documents because they are not the transcript that is authenticated by the military judge. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 8:44 pm
Bell, 2011 U.S. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 3:26 am
Provided that defendant attorneys were not discharged for cause, in which case they would not be entitled to any fee (see Matter of Montgomery, 272 NY 323, 326 [1936]), their recovery would be limited to the fair and reasonable value of their services, computed on the basis of quantum meruit (see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655, 658 [1993]; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 457-458 [1989]; Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz,… [read post]
12 Dec 2006, 9:00 pm
Bell v. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 12:33 pm
Martin to make some changes. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 2:46 pm
Martin, et al. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 5:19 am
Martin of counsel), for respondent. [read post]
