Search for: "Smith v. Fee" Results 41 - 60 of 1,432
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Dec 2009, 3:26 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Provided that defendant attorneys were not discharged for cause, in which case they would not be entitled to any fee (see Matter of Montgomery, 272 NY 323, 326 [1936]), their recovery would be limited to the fair and reasonable value of their services, computed on the basis of quantum meruit (see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655, 658 [1993]; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 457-458 [1989]; Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz,… [read post]
9 Aug 2009, 1:05 am
James Gallagher, in an article titled Duke sues insurer to cover costs of Madey-laser suit gives a suggestion of "how much" Duke paid in the litigation against John Madey, which was ultimately unsuccessful:Randall Roden, an attorney with Tharrington Smith who represented Madey, says he doesn't believe the $5 million limit on Duke's insurance policy with Coregis would cover the legal costs and settlement, adding that he wouldn't be surprised if Duke spent $5… [read post]
14 Nov 2009, 7:09 am by stan_sipple
We also order Smith to return any fees collected from Johnson. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 7:09 am by admin
  (Very occasionally it can be an issue of enormous and urgent national consequence, such as Bush v. [read post]
26 Apr 2016, 6:07 am by Ronald Mann
The double bill began with a case about attorney’s fee awards in copyright cases (Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 10:50 am
Judge Smith doesn't disagree with the ease of pro hac admission (indeed, uses this point affirmatively in his analysis), but does not agree that this is a necessary prerequisite to recovery of fees. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 4:42 am
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 10264, 2006 U.S. [read post]