Search for: "Loomis v. Loomis"
Results 81 - 100
of 129
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2015, 1:26 pm
As ever, SCOTUSBlog has the details on the case, Bank Markazi v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 6:04 am
Loomis Armored Inc. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 7:50 am
Williams v. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 6:42 am
Lawrence “Lee” Loomis, Loomis Wealth Solutions, LLC, John Hagener, and Lismar Financial Services, LLCCase Number: 10-cv-00458 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California)Case Filed: February 23, 2010Qualifying Judgment/Order: January 21, 2015 3/31/15 6/29/15 2015-34 SEC v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 6:30 am
The Supreme Court in Cohen v. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 7:00 am
" See Gardner v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 5:08 pm
Loomis Armored Inc. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 8:41 am
(Hecker I ), 556 F.3d 575, 586 (7th Cir.2009), Loomis v. [read post]
23 Mar 2014, 5:23 pm
The case of Loomis v. [read post]
18 Jan 2014, 2:51 pm
Professor Ruthann Robson, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law In her opinion in Stuart v. [read post]
13 Oct 2013, 11:53 am
Loomis Armored Inc. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 10:23 am
In Demers v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 2:19 pm
However, a 1979 case called Hackbart v. [read post]
12 Aug 2012, 7:59 pm
"Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value are not sufficient" (People v Loomis, 56 AD3d 1046, 1047; see People v Selassie, 166 AD2d 358, 359, lv denied 77 NY2d 911). [read post]
21 May 2012, 7:25 am
The league fined the Saints $500,000, suspended Head Coach Sean Payton without pay for the upcoming NFL season, suspended General Manager Mickey Loomis for half the 2012-2013 season, indefinitely suspended ex-Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams from the NFL and suspended Asst. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 8:56 am
” See, e.g., Andes v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 10:08 am
Loomis, M.D. and Matthew B.... [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 7:31 am
Here is the story – well-presented by two lawyers from Williams Mullen – of the Seventh Circuit deciding this month, in the case of Loomis v Exelon Corporation, that holding retail class mutual fund shares, rather than cheaper institutional share classes, in a defined contribution plan was not sufficient to establish fiduciary liability. [read post]
