Search for: "R. Held, et al. v. State, et al."
Results 1061 - 1080
of 1,758
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2010, 8:02 am
(One federal district court in Indiana did apply Sunbelt Rentals, in CDW LLC et al. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 8:31 am
Chen, et al., Case No. 22-2739 (June 5, 2024), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, albeit in a non-precedential opinion, held that statutory fee-shifting is an equitable remedy, not a legal one, and that it is therefore for the judge to determine “bad faith” as a predicate to a fee award. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 11:03 am
In a recent case, Morrow et al., v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 5:45 pm
James Dobbas, et al. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2008, 10:30 pm
Ashcroft, et al. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 9:27 am
Towson Rehabilitation Center, LLC et al January 11, 2012 Related Web Resource: MD Workers' Compensation in the Courts of Appeals [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 2:18 am
The dissent in Loma Linda was the sole Panel in an earlier UDRP case, Loma Linda University Adventist Health Services Center, et al. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 11:25 am
Code Ann. 16-62-101 et seq. [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 6:30 am
At 11 a.m. today, the Court will hear argument in Vermont v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 2:10 am
Gheewalla, et al., 2006 WL 2588971 (Del. [read post]
12 Mar 2023, 2:14 pm
Ascension Borgess Hospital, et al. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 11:56 am
Amgen, Inc. et al., No. 1:06-cv-10972-WGY, (D. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 11:14 pm
Curtis et. al., applnts v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 8:20 am
Springettsbury Township, et al. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 2:45 pm
” Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Consolidated Reply Brief at 2, City of Oakland, et al v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 7:52 am
That case is Wilson v. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 9:53 am
Nye, et al., No. 09? [read post]
THIRD CIRCUIT FINDS THAT PENNSYLVANIA’S FRAUDULENT TRANSFER STATUTE ALLOWS PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS.
6 Sep 2013, 12:22 pm
Weidner et al. is a game changer. [read post]
3 May 2017, 5:18 am
Knott, et al., C.A. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 3:53 am
” CITAK & CITAK et al., Plaintiffs, -against- THE ST. [read post]