Search for: "Siegel v Siegel" Results 141 - 160 of 742
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
On October 18, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court delivered a very important decision for Illinois employers in Lawlor v. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 12:45 pm
When the defendant delays paying a judgment, and accordingly must pay postjudgment interest, a portion of which is interest on the (six-figure) fee award, who gets the interest:  the attorney or the client? [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 4:58 pm
Andy Siegel has this portrait of the Roberts Court at PrawfsBlawg.Greg Stohr of Bloomberg reports here on "what may have been the most pro- business U.S. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 5:43 am
No says the Third Department yesterday in Matter of Siegel v Commissioner of Labor, 2007 NY Slip Op 06604. [read post]
10 Jan 2014, 2:23 pm by Ronald Mann
  Fresh from last year’s exploration in Bullock v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 8:00 am by Dan Ernst
Nicola Giocoli, University of Pisa, has posted "Value is Not a Fact": Reproduction Cost and the Transition from Classical to Neoclassical Regulation: The paper draws on Siegel (1984) to argue that, while paving the way for constitutionalizing the free market in Lochner v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 9:28 am by Ronald Mann
My preview suggested that Monday’s argument in Law v. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 2:41 pm
Siegel & Wolensky, LLP.Things get a bit eerie (in a good way!) [read post]
25 May 2010, 8:09 am by Anna Christensen
The following essay was written by Andrew Siegel, an Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
We learn, via Barbara Sicherman, Trinity College, that “a roundtable on Griswold v. [read post]
3 May 2023, 4:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Siegel v Melito & Adolfsen, P.C. 2023 NY Slip Op 31373(U) April 14, 2023Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 152781/2022Judge: Dakota D. [read post]
29 Jul 2018, 2:30 pm by David Lat
O'Scannlain -- who just penned a landmark Second Amendment opinion, Young v. [read post]