Search for: "Williams v. Prospect, Inc."
Results 61 - 80
of 290
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2020, 6:30 am
Complaints took many forms: against the superfluity of electors who lacked any deliberative functions; against the effective nullification (or “wasting”) of minority votes through winner-take-all rules; against the prospect of a contingent election in the House of Representatives, as first dramatized in 1824, which was arguably the one case that best exemplified the framers’ expectations. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
Mountain Lion Foundation v. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 3:00 am
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. [read post]
24 Sep 2020, 1:00 pm
The decision issued today—Blount Inc. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. [read post]
12 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
William Abbott is Of Counsel and Daniel Cucchi is Senior Associate at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 1:15 pm
” William A. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 4:00 am
(b) Second, the court must determine from the supporting evidence whether there is a real prospect that, if the stay is granted, the challenge may never be resolved by the arbitrator.[8] The Court concluded that “a court should not refer a bona fide challenge to an arbitrator’s jurisdiction to the arbitrator if there is a real prospect that doing so would result in the challenge never being resolved. [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 3:00 am
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
Stephens (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1291; FilmOn.com Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 10:13 am
There is authority under state law that payments to witnesses to provide favorable testimony do in fact constitute bribery.[10] For example, the Texas Penal Code provides that:[11] “(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to influence the witness, he offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit on a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding[[12]] or coerces a witness or prospective witness in an official proceeding: (1) to testify falsely; (2)… [read post]
18 May 2020, 3:00 am
Stephens (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1291; and FilmOn.com Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 1:48 pm
That said, the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Marchand v. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 3:52 am
City of New York, New York, a challenge to New York City’s since-amended limits on transporting personal firearms, bankruptcy case Ritzen Group Inc. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 7:23 am
Gadabout Tours, Inc. [read post]
6 Dec 2019, 12:03 pm
Author: Luke Hasskamp This article—the third in a series—focuses on the Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Baseball Club v. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 10:34 am
Williams, 553 U.S. at 298-99 (citing Brandenburg v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 2:39 pm
OTP, LLC, v. [read post]
25 Oct 2019, 7:28 am
Kraft Foods Group, Inc., October 23, 2019).Contempt proceedings. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 11:57 am
In the past, many have observed anecdotally and cynically that even after many years of deliberation and millions of dollars in legal and expert fees often expended, the tariff at the end of the day has often the simple arithmetical average of the amounts proposed by the proponent and opponent(s) +/– a few percent.However, that pattern, if it was ever true, has been changing and the Board has issued some surprising and encouraging decision. in recent yearsThe Board has refused to set… [read post]
