Search for: "John C. Coffee, Jr."
Results 121 - 131
of 131
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2007, 3:55 pm
Boutrous Jr., who represents Ford Motor Co. and other firms that are fighting large punitive verdicts, said the ruling would be very helpful to corporate defendants. [read post]
1 May 2012, 6:03 am
Stahl Jr., “Issues addressed and unaddressed in EPA’s ecological risk guidelines,” 17 Risk Policy Report 35 (1998); (noting that U.S. [read post]
9 May 2023, 9:01 pm
There is reason to believe the SEC’s new universal proxy Rule 14a-19 will result in more stockholder nominees being elected to the boards of public companies. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
[Editor’s Note: This post is based on a comment letter submitted to the U.S. [read post]
29 Dec 2007, 3:02 am
Senter, Jr. to modify or overturn the magistrate's rulings because, it is claimed, the depositions will improperly impinge on attorney-client communications. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 8:46 am
., 112 N.E.2d 254, 257 (Mass. 1953) (coffee maker exploded in plaintiff‘s face); Bruns v. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 9:05 pm
The hostility of at least a plurality of the Supreme Court to the Administrative State has become increasingly evident. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 8:26 pm
In discussing how companies are using delaying tactics to stall hostile takeover bids (a subject for another day), Steven Davidoff opines: The trick is for courts to prevent this manipulation from depriving shareholders of the ultimate choice of when to sell the company. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
The Securities and Exchange Commission regulations on climate disclosure, first proposed in March 2022 and likely to be issued in final form in October 2023,[1] have drawn considerable controversy and face an uncertain fate in the inevitable litigation.[2] Much less attention has gone to two bills that are moving toward adoption in California. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 7:21 am
King, Jr. [read post]
17 Mar 2007, 6:23 pm
Cotus", who rounded-up several worthy comments on the 2d Amendment case and concluded with some observations of his own: "[C]onsidering that the 2-1 panel had to bridge several issues that they considered close . . . it is problematic to say that this result is based on the "plain language" of the constitution. [read post]
