Search for: "Matter of BRB" Results 81 - 100 of 110
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2021, 8:08 am by admin
LOCATION: All US Offices “Conflicts Manager” — The Conflicts Manager is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Firm’s Conflicts Department, and oversees processes related to the conflicts search and analysis of potential new clients and new matters, the conflicts evaluation of lateral attorneys and other new hires, and potential conflicts in restructuring/debtor representations. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 6:00 am by Jon Robinson
Service Employees Int’l, Inc., 43 BRBS 18 (2009), aff’d on recon. en banc, 43 BRBS 136 (2009). [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 8:37 am by Jo Ann Hoffman & Associates, P.A.
Services, 31 BRBS 81 (1997), and 33 BRBS 32 (1999), aff’d mem. sub nom. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 6:00 am by Jon Robinson
  Here are impeded hyperlinks to the ALJ’s Order Concerning Attorney’s Fees and the BRB’s Decision and Order. [read post]
22 Aug 2014, 7:12 am by Jon Robinson
  Therefore, the BRB committed no error of law and the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 5:00 am by Jon Robinson
Service Employees Int’l, Inc., 43 BRBS 18, aff’d on recon. en banc, 43 BRBS 136 (2009). [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 6:00 am by Jon Robinson
  The BRB again affirmed, and the Employer petitioned the Sixth Circuit for the second time. [read post]
3 May 2013, 6:00 am by Patrick Babin
”  The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision and a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the BRB. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 6:00 am by Jon Robinson
Ceres Marine Terminals, where the employer paid $1 in “compensation,” but the BRB held that the $1 payment was not “true” compensation. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 6:00 am by Jon Robinson
White, 9 BRBS 138, 142 (1978), aff’d mem., 617 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1980). [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 4:16 am by David J. DePaolo
It doesn't matter if the law produces an "absurd" result. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 5:00 am by Jon Robinson
., BRB No. 09-0614, 2010 WL 711107 (2010) (published) (“We reject claimant’s contention that the ‘zone of special danger’ doctrine is applicable in this OCSLA case. [read post]