Search for: "Austin v. Davis" Results 161 - 180 of 207
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2016, 6:45 am
McLaughlin and Yafit Cohn, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, on Friday, May 13, 2016 Tags: Acquisition agreements, Contracts, Corporate fraud, Delaware cases, Delaware law, Due diligence, Fair values,Fairness review, Liability standards, Merger litigation, Mergers & acquisitions, Reliance Genuine Parts Co. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm by Pace Law School Library
Lancaster Jr., chair; Ralph Gillis, David Colson, Davis Robinson and Judge Stephen M. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 4:40 am by Rob Robinson
 bit.ly/yRWkxa (Henry Kelston) How to Create an eDiscovery Team – An Interview with HB Gordan from Teva Pharmaceuticals – bit.ly/xCM6yj (Amber Scorah) How to Reduce Medical Malpractice eDiscovery Issues and Costs - bit.ly/ylZmA5 (Matthew Keris) Innovation and Informed Risk-Taking are an eDiscovery Duty - bit.ly/zKtiDm (Chris Dale) Lester v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 5:57 am by Rob Robinson
Census Bureau) Department of Defense Cloud Computing Strategy (PDF) - http://1.usa.gov/Mk07Th (Teresa Takai) EDRM XML White Paper Now Available -The Electronic Discovery Reference Model - http://bit.ly/LlybwU (George Socha) Infographic: How to Escape Being a Cybercrime Victim - http://bit.ly/MiYUf3 (Kim Davis) The Air Force Guide to Effective Social Media Use (PDF) http://bit.ly/Mt8Vq1 (U.S. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 6:03 am by Derek T. Muller
of Texas at Austin 1.18 $106,598 $90,100 V&erbilt Univ. 1.19 $129,030 $108,800 Univ. of Arkansas 1.19 $61,500 $51,700 Mitchell Hamline Sch. of Law 1.21 $64,429 $53,200 Univ. of California-Los Angeles 1.26 $121,453 $96,600 Univ. of North Dakota 1.26 $61,500 $48,800 Univ. of Kansas 1.27 $66,415 $52,100 Univ. of Kentucky 1.28 $69,860 $54,400 Univ. of Mississippi 1.32 $64,300 $48,700 The Univ. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 9:02 pm by Lyle Denniston
Davis (11-714), on redistricting the state senate, and Perry v. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 1:09 am by Jeff Gamso
 Just as things drew to a close, a three-judge panel of the court of appeals in Austin ordered Baird not to rule. [read post]