Search for: "Fee v. Fee"
Results 141 - 160
of 34,632
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2017, 9:00 am
Dore v. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 4:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
In Kirby v. [read post]
25 Feb 2007, 3:20 am
As discussed in an earlier post, the US Supreme Court will shortly decide Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 4:01 am
File, Esq., PC v. [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 6:12 am
Marecic v. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 7:46 am
Hall v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 1:49 pm
J.S. and S.S. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 9:34 am
; Tweten v. [read post]
2 Apr 2017, 9:00 am
Relying on an exception to the American rule permitting fee-shifting where a contract so provides, the Supreme Court in Washington v. [read post]
11 Feb 2023, 6:21 am
The opinion is styled, Antonio Mantzuranis v. [read post]
10 Oct 2009, 1:54 am
Guino v. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 4:26 pm
In Zaid v. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 7:20 am
This does not mean that the courts are recognizing new gun rights.The case is Kwong v. [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 7:01 am
The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department rejected an appeal of a fee arbitration award Respondent failed to establish any grounds for vacating the arbitration award (see CPLR 7511[b]; Matter of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v... [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 7:02 am
The article concentrates on New York law and in particular, Brady v. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 4:58 am
In the realm of fee-sharing disputes, "courts will not inquire into the precise worth of the services performed by the parties" (Benjamin v Koeppel, 85 NY2d 549, 556 [1995]). [read post]
12 May 2014, 4:02 am
Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
Harris Associates (08-586), tests whether a 1970 law that seems to limit those fees only applies if the adviser misled fund directors to get their approval for the fees. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 2:22 am
Teichner by Teichner v. [read post]
